Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 29th March for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Mr. James Hope): This Bill contains provisions which ask for compulsory powers to be used for private purposes without any public advantage. Following the precedents of my predecessors in this matter, the, last of which was on 23rd April, 1896, by Lord Ullswater, who was then Chairman of Committees, I have to say that if these provisions were persisted in, I could not take the responsibility of moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I understand, however, that the promoters are prepared to withdraw these provisions, and, therefore, I will waive the objection. I only raised these few remarks for the sake of reaffirming and renewing a precedent set in the past on similar occasions in Parliament.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to object to the Bill being taken now.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Maidstone Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

AMIR CHAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make inquiries as to the present condition as to health and sanity of Amir Chand, of Peshawar, undergoing three years' imprisonment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am not aware of any reason for anxiety about the welfare of this prisoner, and I am unwilling to put the public to the expense of a telegram of inquiry concerning any particular prisoner, unless the hon. and gallant Member has any information which leads him to suppose that Amir Chand's health and sanity are in jeopardy, in which case my Noble Friend will look into the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps the Noble Lord will write?

Earl WINTERTON: I will do so.

PENAL SETTLEMENT, ANDAMANS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the resuscitation of the penal settlement in the Andamans, he will now publish the Report of the Indian Prisons Committee which condemned that establishment?

Earl WINTERTON: As I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member privately, the Report of the Indian Gaols Committee was presented to Parliament in May, 1921, Command Paper 1303.

SALT DUTY.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Governor-General has used his powers, and, if so, what powers, to pass the proposal to double the salt duty which has been twice rejected by the Indian Assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: the Indian Finance Bill, containing a Clause raising the rate of salt duty from Rs. 1.4 to Rs. 2.8 per maund, which was rejected by the Legislative Assembly, passed by the Council of State, and again rejected by the
Legislative Assembly, has been certified by the Governor-General to be essential for the interests of British India, and accordingly, under Section 67 B of the Government of India Act, becomes an Act of the Indian Legislature. The Governor-General has issued a full statement of his reasons for adopting this course.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the action taken by the Viceroy be open to debate in this House before the legislation takes effect?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. Under the provision in question, the Act becomes operative at once, and is now in operation.

MAIL SERVICE.

Mr. GILBERT: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what was the mail time for letters to and from London to Bombay pre-War, in 1914, and this year; what is the cause of the present longer period, and what times are fixed in the Indian mail contracts; and whether, in view of the importance of a quicker service to Eastern commerce, anything will be done to re-establish the quicker mail times between London and India which existed in pre-War times?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): My hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has been asked to reply. The contract time for the mails from London to Bombay in 1914 was 13½ days; the present time of transit is 14½ days. The mails are now sent overland through France and are embarked at Marseilles, while formerly they were sent by Brindisi; and the extra time taken is mainly due to the longer sea journey. The importance of a fast mail service to India and the Far East is fully realised, and the question of an acceleration of the present service is engaging my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any British diplomatic or consular representatives in Eastern Galicia; if so, in which towns or districts they are stationed; whether any reports on the
political and economic situation in the province have been received; and whether they will be published?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Lemberg is the only British representative in East Galicia. Recent reports received from him and from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw indicate that there are signs of an improvement of relations between the Polish and Ruthenian elements of the local population. No useful purpose would be served by publishing these reports.

TURKEY.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about negotiations with a view to concluding a Treaty with Turkey?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information on the progress or otherwise of the negotiations for peace with Turkey?

Mr. McNEILL: The Allied Note replying to the Turkish counter proposals was handed to the Turkish authorities by the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople on 31st March and was published in the English Press on 2nd April. The reply of the Turkish Government has only been received to-day, and there has not yet been time to consider it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will the Conference reassemble, and who will be the British representatives?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer either of these questions at the present moment.

REPARATION COMMISSION.

Mr. PRINGLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what duties the Reparation Commission is now performing; and whether the Committee of Guarantees is still in existence and the Government is represented on that Committee?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): There has been no change in the duties of the Reparation Commission, which remain as
laid down in the Peace Treaties. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend answer the question on the Paper? The question is as to what duties the Reparation Commission is now performing. I know the duties as laid down in the Treaty; my question is, what are they no w doing?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer I have given. It is perfectly obvious that anyone who hag to perform duties finds them at times harder than at others.

Mr. PRINGLE: When will the right hoi. Gentleman he in a position to state exactly what the Reparation Commission is doing now?

Captain W. BENN: Does the British representative continue to participate in this Commission, with the decisions of which he always disagrees?

Mr. BALDWIN: As far as I know.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the representative of this country on the Committee of Guarantees?

Mr. BALDWIN: Mr. Leith-Ross, late of the Treasury.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen him, and does he not know what duties he is performing?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Captain TERRELL: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to selected specialised sections of agriculture?

Sir R. SANDERS: The application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to certain sections of agriculture is not possible, since articles of food and drink are specifically excluded from the scope of the Act.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantities of eggs imported, not in shell, during the years 1920, 1921, and 1922?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


QUANTITY OF EGGS, NOT IN SHELL, IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM DURING THE YEARS 1920, 1921, AND 1922.


Description.
1920.
1921.
1922.


Eggs not in shell:
cwts.
cwts.
cwts.


Liquid and yolk
442,715
454,108
424,005


Albumen
54,959
35,341
37,835


Dried
36,628
29,970
10,645


Total
534,302
519,419
472,485

Mr. SIMPSON further: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether eggs are imported, unshelled, in tins from China and elsewhere; how these eggs are preserved; and for what purposes they are used in Great Britain?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I understand that dried and frozen eggs without shells and containing no preservative are imported into this country, and, in addition, liquid egg yolk preserved with boric acid. Dried eggs are sold to the public, but frozen and liquid eggs are mostly used in the confectionery trade.

Mr. SIMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they are hens' eggs?

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that eggs can be produced in this country if the Minister of Agriculture will only take steps

RAILWAY RATES.

Captain TERRELL: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will approach the general managers of the four railway groups with a view to seeking their co-operation in the securing of some preferential railway rates for home agricultural produce?

Sir R. SANDERS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Lieut.-Colonel N.
Coates) on the 19th March. The Committee referred to in that answer will consider the possibility of a reduction in the rates on agricultural produce, but under existing legislation no railway company may make any difference in the charges for home and foreign merchandise in respect of the same or similar services.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: Can the right hon. Gentleman remember, in communicating with the Committee, that it is not only agricultural produce that wants lower railway rates, but coal?

CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).

Mr. LAMB: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to a report appearing in the "Times" of Saturday, 7h April, relating to the importation of Canadian cattle, in which it was stated that "the prices averaged £32 per head or fits. per cwt. live weight and that a large majority of the buyers were butchers who purchased the animals for immediate slaughter "; and if, in accordance with his reply to a question previously put by rue, that only cattle for feeding purposes would he licensed by his inspectors away from the port of entry, he will have inquiry made as to the accuracy of the "Times" report?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have seen the paragraph referred to, and as regards the Manchester consignment, the Ministry's inspector reports that only 40 animals were purchased by butchers, and on his instructions a licence was refused and they were slaughtered in the landing place. The remainder were purchased by graziers, chiefly from Norfolk and Leicester. At Glasgow 129 of the total consignment of 221 animals were licensed out, mostly to private premises for feeding, very few going to markets for sale as stores. The remaining 92 were classed as "fat" by the Ministry's inspectors and slaughtered in the landing place.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Black, the Deputy Minister of Immigration for the Dominion of Canada, has con-
cluded negotiations with the Oversea Settlement Committee, and, if so, the nature of the agreement reached?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The negotiations with the Deputy Minister of Immigation for Canada are still in progress, and I regret that in these circumstances I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a position to inform the House whether there is a chance of settlement before the return of Mr. Black to Canada?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I hope so. I cannot say definitely.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the 20 years' experience of the Salvation Army with their colonisation and migration system under the direction of Commissioner Daniel Lamb, he will consider the advisability of taking full advantage of and, if possible, extending their extensive overseas organisation, particularly in regard to the settlement overseas of widows with large families by grants in aid or by other financial assistance?

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the negotiations in connection with the Salvation Army migration authorities have reached a conclusion; and, if so, whether he will indicate the nature of the arrangements so made?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I am fully aware of the valuable assistance which migration has for many years received from the Salvation Army under the direction of Commissioner Lamb. The Oversea Settlement Committee have been in close touch with him in regard to schemes for co-operation with the Salvation Army under the Empire Settlement Act, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to indicate the nature of the arrangements which it is hoped to conclude.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if he will give an
assurance that in the arrangements which have been or are to be made for providing finance required for the British Empire Exhibition pending receipts from charges for exhibiting space, admission, etc., no suggestion of an increased Government guarantee in excess of £100,000 has been or will be made without reference to the Reuse of Commons?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I know of no suggestion that the amount of the Government's liability should be increased, but, in any event, as I have already informed the hon. Member, there can be no question of increasing the liability without reference to the House.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. GILBERT: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the approximate cost of the recent. British trade exhibitions held at the White City, London, and at Birmingham; if he can give any report as to the value of the orders received by exhibitors at both places; and if very mercy foreign and export orders were received?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The total cost of the British Industries Fair, recently organised by the Department of Overseas Trade at the White City, was approximately £36,000. This amount has been fully covered by the revenue obtained from letting of space to exhibitors, advertisements in catalogues, etc. The Birmingham section of the fair is not organised by my Department, and no expenditure out of public funds is involved. It is difficult to form any estimate of the amount of orders received, as exhibitors are not invited to make returns of such orders, and also because business initiated at the fair frequently does not mature until some months later. I understand, however, that the business done this year was satisfactory, and that ex port orders showed a considerable increase over those for the preceding fair.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Mr. BONWICK: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when the net amount of the deficits of the Chartered Company is
established, these deficits are to be defrayed, not by a cash payment, but out of future sales of the unalienated land; whether in Rhodesia unalienated land has been technically taken to mean land hitherto occupied only by natives; and whether, in order to facilitate the sale of these lands, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of recommending that the native occupants be given the first right of purchase by a system of payment by instalments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The procedure mentioned in the first part of the question is that which is contemplated in the draft Letters Patent providing for the establishment of responsible government in Southern Rhodesia; but the arrangement is contested by the British South Africa Company, who have presented a Petition of Right on the subject. There is nothing to prevent natives from purchasing land, which is generally paid for in instalments, but I do not think that the procedure suggested in the last part of the question would facilitate the object in view.

Mr. BONWICK: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that his predecessor, speaking on the Colonial Office Vote in 1919, stated that the Commission under Lord Cave would determine what were the proper administrative deficits of the British South Africa Company, and then announced that His Majesty's Government would accept the findings of this Commission as a correct and final interpretation in terms of money of the Privy Council judgment and whether the company concerned has had its attention drawn to the nature of this undertaking announced to Parliament upon the appointment of the Commission under the present Lord Chancellor?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the statement of my right hon. Friend was made after the correspondence as to the acceptance of the decisions of the Commission, which is printed on pages 6 and 7 of Cind. 1,129.

Mr. BONWICK: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the settlers of Rhodesia informed Lord Cave's Commission through Sir
Charles Coghlan, that they wished it made perfectly plain to the Commission that in no circumstances would the Rhodesian people accept any liability for the debts of the British South African Company; and whether the reason for insisting upon the point was one of the principal factors in leading Lord Cave's Commission to recommend an expert valuation of land alienated by the company to itself?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware of the statement by Sir Charles Coghlan referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I can only refer the hon. Member to what is said on the subject in the Report of the Commission.

PRIVY COUNCIL (JUDICIAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. LANSBURY: 26.
asked the Attorney-General if he can state what official is responsible for convening the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the performance of its judicial functions and what official is responsible for convening the House of Lords when that House is sitting as the final Court of Appeal; and whether he will introduce legislation limiting the exercise of judicial functions by members of the House of Lords and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to members who are under 70 years of age?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The composition of the House of Lords when sitting judicially and of the Judicial Committee is determined on any particular occasion by arrangement amongst the Lords and others who are qualified to sit on these tribunals. The answer to the second part of the question is, certainly not. The effect of the hon. Member's suggestion would be to deprive both tribunals of the assistance of judges of the greatest learning, skill, and experience, whose services to the State are of the greatest value, and without whose help—which in many eases is rendered without payment —the tribunals could not exercise their functions.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever appeared as a prisoner before one of these excellent, over-age judges?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDY (UTILITY SOCIETIES).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the possibility of making the housing subsidy of £6 a year available for utility societies and other approved bodies in areas where the local authority decides not to avail itself of the Government offer?

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I have already considered the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers and hope to meet it in the proposals in the Housing Bill.

HOUSING AND RENT BILLS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister when the text of the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Bill and the Housing, etc., Bill will be available to Members; and when the respective Second Readings of these Measures will be taken?

Mr. PRINGLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when the Housing and Rent Restriction Bills will be circulated; and whether he can fix the date of their Second Reading?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): As regards the Housing Bill, it is proposed to introduce the Bill as early as possible, and it is hoped that it will be in the hands of Members not later than the 16th April. The Second Reading of the Bill will be taken on Tuesday, the 24th April.
It is not yet possible to say exactly when the text of the Rent Restriction Bill will be published, or when the Second Reaching will be taken.

Sir K. WOOD: Having regard to the great urgency of this matter, and the fact that a large portion of the building season has already gone by, is it not possible to take the Housing Bill before the 24th?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SOUTH LOCH ERISORT ROAD.

Sir WILLIAM COTTS: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the Government will see
that the proper authorities complete the South Loch Erisort road, which has been left unfinished for a distance of two-and-a-half miles, and which passes through a school area, where the majority of the children have found it impossible this winter to attend school owing to the dangerous condition of the existing footpath?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): My No ole Friend understands that the local road authority cannot afford to construct the extension of the road to Garyvard, and he is unable to offer a grant out of any public moneys for the expenditure of which he is responsible. Representations have been made that occasionally the condition of the footpath is such that children at Garyvard cannot attend the school at Kershader. Inquiries are being made on this point. The footpath appears to be one of the public ways which the Parish Council have statutory power to repair.

PIERS, LEWIS.

Sir W. COTTS: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the piers surveyed in the lochs district of the Lewis at Crossbost and Cromore could now be proceeded with, as the inadequacy of facilities throws a great hardship on the inhabitants where the approach by sea is the only means of getting to their homes?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend regrets that in the present financial circumstances it is not practicable to offer any grant towards the construction of these two piers.

HYDE PARK.

Captain TERRELL: 22.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he has been able to make arrangements for planting flowers on the eastern boundary of Hyde Park, adjoining Park Lane, so that the grass beds there may be beautified and additional pleasure afforded to all classes who use the park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): The proprietors of the "Evening News" have very generously offered to provide 80,000 bulbs for planting in the area in question. This public-spirited gift, which I have grate-
fully accepted, will, I am sure, be keenly appreciated by visitors to Hyde Park, as will also the fact that the bulbs are to be obtained from British firms.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In relation to this "Evening News" gift, will the right hon. Gentleman not charge the paper for the advertisement that he is giving them?

Sir J. BAIRD: I think the hon. Member is himself giving a free advertisement. The only advertisement the "Evening News" will get for their gift will be this acknowledgment, which is the least we can do in the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING.

Captain BOWYER: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men are now undergoing training in Government instructional factories; how many are still waiting to begin their training; and how many are waiting for improverships to be found for them?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The number of men in training in Government Instructional Factories on 27th March, 1923, was about 8,600. In addition, about 7,850 men were in training in other centres and in employers' workshops. The number of men awaiting training at the same date was about 6,300 in Great Britain and 4,200 in Ireland. The number awaiting improverships was about 3,600. With regard to improverships, I may add that the recent commencement of improvement. in trade has been accompanied by an increase in the number of improvership vacancies filled.

Captain BOWYER: There are men that have been waiting for more than a year. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a likelihood that they will not have to wait much longer?

Sir M. BARLOW: I know that the waiting, that is inevitable in the matter of improverships, has been a very serious one, and I have latterly been giving all attention possible to it. I am glad to say that the canvassers who have been employed within the limits of bad trade have been successful in securing vacancies.

KING'S ROLL.

Captain BOWYER: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour how many firms and local authorities, respectively, are on the King's Roll; what number of disabled ex-service men are thus employed can he say how many disabled ex-service men are unemployed and seeking employment; and will he state whether, and to what degree, the King's Roll is functioning better?

Sir M. BARLOW: This matter has been under the consideration of the recently constituted King's Roll National Council. Renewals of the original undertakings have been sought from firms on the Roll; and out of approximately 30,000 employers (of whom 1,226 are local authorities), originally on the Roll, 20,817 (including 797 local authorities) have renewed their undertaking, and probably about another 3,500 will renew in due course. In addition, new enrolments at the rate of 60 to 70 per week are being received. The present number of disabled ex-service men employed by employers on the Roll is estimated at nearly 300,000. I have every reason to hope that as the local King's Roll committees develop their activities the rate of new enrolments will increase. The number of disabled men registered at the Employment Exchanges on the 26th March is estimated to be not more than 50,000, but, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, Local King's Roll committees are examining the register of disabled ex-service men in the various localities in order to arrive at complete figures.

Captain BOWYER: Is there any prospect of these local committees being set up in the counties?

Sir M. BARLOW: They have been set up, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, in the boroughs, and I believe it is hoped to extend them after working in the boroughs has become satisfactorily established.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has any recent list been published of the firms which are on the King's Roll, and is the right hon. Gentleman not conscious of the fact that the publication of this list is a very great encouragement to those who are doing good, and a very great warning to those who are not?

Sir M. BARLOW: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but the King's Roll National Council are giving close attention to that very proposal, and in due course further action will be taken.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to state what local authorities are not, so far, on the King's Roll?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that certain local authorities find considerable difficulty in differentiating as to who is doing useful work on behalf of the services, particularly in towns with a large population, engaged, say, in manufacturing?

Sir M. BARLOW: There is a difficulty. I have been asked this question a good many times, and there are, as I have already said, genuine difficulties about it. But the matter is now being considered by the King's Roll National Council, and I shall take into consideration, when they arrive at a decision, what advice they may offer me in the matter.

Viscount CURZON: Is there any more difficulty in the case of local authorities than in the case of private firms?

Civil, SERVICE.

Mr. HOGGE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the full composition of the Committee he proposes to set up to deal with the working of the recommendations of the Lytton Report and the terms of reference?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the 27th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown).

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he is going to set up this Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: As soon as possible.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the inquiry which is to be undertaken by this Committee is a very large inquiry, and that it is most urgent that it should be undertaken at once?

Mr. BALDWIN: Arrangements are being made that it shall be undertaken at, once. It was impossible to do so during the Easter holiday.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can inform the House whether any arrangements have now been concluded for employing a number of British unemployed on work in connection with the undertakings in France of the Imperial War Graves Commission?

Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Financial Secretary to the War Office on 6th March last. Since then the matter has been under careful consideration, but it is not free from difficulty. I am keeping in close touch with the vice-chairman of the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Sir H. BRITTAN: In view of the very natural sentiment in this country, can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that as many British as possible are employed on this work?

Sir M. BARLOW: That has been the endeavour all through.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CABLE COMPANIES (LICENCES).

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that he has undertaken to lay upon the Table of the House the licences to be issued to the wireless companies for the conduct of wireless services, he will also lay upon the Table the licences which have been issued to the various cable companies?

Major BARNSTON: Licences to land telegraph cables in this country are granted by the Board of Trade and the Post Office in conjunction; but those granted to the principal cable companies are now due for renewal. When the new licences have been issued, copies will, if desired, be laid upon the Table.

WIRELESS STATIONS, CAIRO AND LEAFIELD.

Sir B. CHADWICK: 33 and 34.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether the
total expenses of the Post Office wireless station at Cairo are estimated at £49,000 per annum, whilst the total revenue for nine months, ended 31st June last, amounted to only £4,700; what proportion of this revenue was for commercial traffic; whether in the item of £49,000 for expenses anything is included for salaries and allowances of the engineering staff, for the overhead charges of the General Post Office, for delivery of telegrams, maintenance of land lines, etc.; if not, will he give an estimate of the amount of these charges so as to enable the House to know the true annual loss on the running of the Cairo station;
(2) whether the total expenses of the Post Office wireless station at Leafield are estimated at £36,000 per annum, whilst the total revenue for nine months amounts to only £24,000; what proportion of this revenue was for commercial traffic: whether in the item of £36,000 for expenses anything is included for salaries and allowances of the engineering staff, for the overhead charges of the General Post Office, and for the delivery of telegrams, maintenance of land lines, etc.; and, if not, will he give an estimate of the amount of these charges, so as to enable the House to know the true annual loss on the running of the Leafield station?

Major BARNSTON (for the Postmaster-General): The estimates of £49,000 and £36,000 per annum quoted by the hon. Member represent; the total expenses proper to the Cairo and Leafield stations respectively, including salaries and allowances of the engineering staff at the stations and adequate provision for overhead charges in each case. In calculating the revenue proper to the stations, suitable deductions have been made for the use of the land lines and for the collection and delivery of telegrams. Of the revenue for the nine months May to January (not June) last, about 75 per cent. in the case of the Cairo station, and about 70 per cent. in the case of the Lea-field station, was derived from commercial traffic; but, as already stated, if the official traffic transmitted by these stations had not been sent by this route, it would have had to go by other routes at equal or greater cost; and its value is, therefore, properly credited to the stations. The Leafield station was opened for traffic about 18 months ago. The revenue is
increasing, and is now nearly sufficient to meet the expenses. The revenue of the Cairo station, which was opened less than a year ago, is also increasing, but, pending the provision of facilities for wireless communication beyond Egypt, it can hardly be expected that the revenue will balance the expenditure.

COAL PRICES.

Mr. GILBERT: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the recent advances in the price of coal for home consumption; whether his Department has made any inquiry into the reasons for the advance, and if there is any justification for the prices which home consumers now have to pay; and whether, in the interest of home industries using large quantities of coal, anything can be done by his Department to prevent prices advancing as they have done this year?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): Yes, Sir. The advance in prices is attributable to the increased demand at home and abroad. With regard to the rest of the question, I have no power to limit prices, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 14th March last to the hon. Member for the Royton Division (Sir W. Sugden).

DYESTUFFS ( IMPORTATION).

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Central Importing Agency was a department of the private firm of Fairclough, Dodd, and Jones; and, if so, whether he can state why it was allowed to trade virtually as a department of the Board of Trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The Central Importing Agency was art organisation set up by Messrs. Fairclough, Dodd, and Jones to conduct the business of agents of the Board of Trade for the distribution of German reparation dyes. I am not aware that the Agency claimed to be a department of the Board of Trade.

Major ATTLEE: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dyestuffs Advisory Committee have refused to give a definite reply to the application of Mr. Thomas H. Daniels, of Belfast, to import a quantity of oxydiamine brown G, although informed that this dyestuff was unobtainable from British manufacturers; that, although informed that Mr. Daniels' customer had tried the products of British firms and found them unsuitable, the Committee directed Mr. Daniels to apply to the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, for a substitute; whether he is aware that the Dyestuffs Advisory Committee demanded a sample of this dyestuff, while refusing to allow Mr. Daniels to import a quantity from which a sample might have been supplied; and whether he will take steps to see that isolated firms, such as that of Mr. Daniels, in Belfast, are afforded as good facilities for carrying on their business as others?

Viscount WOLMER: I am informed that the Dyestuffs Advisory Committee have indicated alternative British sources for the supply of a dyestuff equivalent to that which the applicant wishes to import, and, as they have not received any evidence from a consumer that such equivalent is unsuitable, they have declined to grant a licence. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all applicants for licences are given equal consideration.

Major ATTLEE: Is not the Noble Lord aware that this importer has given evidence to the Dyestuffs Board that he cannot get the quality he requires from a British firm, and ought not this man to be treated as knowing something about his own business?

Viscount WOLMER: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that he is misinformed.

GRETNA FACTORY.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he proposes to reconsider the Report of the Pearson Committee set up in February, 1919, which advised the Government to continue the use of such part of the Gretna factory as might he necessary for
the manufacture of explosives and develop the rest of the buildings and plant for other industries?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): No, Sir; the greater part of the explosives plant has already been sold, and I see no reason to question the decision taken in the matter.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the hon. Gentle-ma a riot aware that a Commission was set up to report, and that the Government have acted defiance of that Report, without giving any explanation of the course that they took?

Mr. GWYNNE: The decision was come to by the late Government.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OFFICER STURMINSTER NEWTON.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury received, on the 26th April, 1922, an appeal from Mr. Arthur Rose, of Sturminster Newton, Dorset, against the decision of the Dorset County Council refusing to grant him any compensation on the termination of his appointment as school attendance officer for the Rural District of Sturminster Newton; whether the Treasury have yet given their decision on Mr. Rose's appeal; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay in adjudicating on this ease?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: This appeal was received, and has been the subject of considerable correspondence. The Treasury decision has now been notified to Mr. Rose.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum collected, under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, on goods imported into this country from occupied Germany since the French advance into German territory; the sum recovered on goods
imported into this country from unoccupied Germany in the same period and the sums collected during the same period in 1922?

Mr. BALDWIN: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that export prices fixed by the German Government for goods shipped to this country are higher than the prices fixed for similar goods exported to France, Holland and Belgium by a percentage more or less equivalent to the 26 per cent. duty imposed here by the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; and if he will make representations to the German Government which will have the effect of placing this country on the same footing as that of other countries?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government are not in possession of definite information as to the principles on which minimum export prices are fixed by the German Trade Control Offices. The price lists are not published, and, although it is alleged that the prices depend partly on the rate of exchange with the country of destination of the goods, I am not aware that they are fixed with reference to the 26 per cent. Reparation levy in the case of this country. His Majesty's Government are already in communication with the German Government on the subject of the policy of fixing differential export prices.

FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any statement on the situation in the Ruhr; and whether His Majesty's Government have decided upon any steps to bring about a settlement of the differences between France and Germany?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to make any change in their policy in view of the recent events in the occupied territory and the Ruhr?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to acid to the statements already made in the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. PFIINGLE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any statement has been received from the French Government either as to the aim or the duration of the French occupation of the Ruhr; and, if not, whether the Government has addressed any question to the French Government on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: Statements were made by M. Poincaré at the Conferences held in London and Paris. the Minutes of which have been published. Further, an official communiqué was issued by the French and Belgian Governments on 12th March last.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has no statement been made as to the objects of the French policy since the statement at the Paris Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing except the statement on the 12th March.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the purpose of M. Loucheur's visit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have another question about that.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not a fact that the French Prime Minister has recently addressed a message to the Belgians in which he has stated that the evacuation of the Ruhr will not take place until reparations have been settled in full?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think not. I have not. seen such a statement.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S INSTITUTES.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether officers of his Department are members of the executive committee of the National Federation of Women's Institutes?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir. Two of the three members of the executive committee, whom I am entitled to appoint, are officers of the Ministry.

STATE SERVANTS (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
intends to recommend to the Anderson Committee of Inquiry the earliest possible consideration of the grievances entailed by the present starting pay of the Lytton entrants; whether he can now give further information as to the intended procedure of the Anderson Committee of Inquiry; and if he will state on what grounds the three gentlemen selected to inquire were so selected?

Mr. BALDWIN: In the answer which I gave on the 29th March it was explained that the Committee was to inquire into the present standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment of the various classes of State servants employed in the four direct services of the Crown. That is to say, the Committee will direct its attention to general questions. The Government are prepared to suggest to the Committee that they should give specific consideration as early as possible to the case of the Lytton entrants. As regards the last part of the question, the three members of the Committee were specially selected as being, in the opinion of the Government, eminently qualified to give authoritative and impartial advice upon the matters referred to them.

Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the Government are prepared to give a specific instruction about the initial entry will the Chancellor of the Exchequer go farther and ask the Committee to submit an interim report on the subject immediately it is finished, instead of waiting for the full report?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that. I am desirous of getting a report on the matter as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — M. LOUCHEUR'S VISIT TO MR. BONAR LAW.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: (by a Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether M. Loucheur put before him any suggestions for the solution of the Ruhr entbroglio; whether the suggestions included either the internationalisation of the Rhineland or the guaranteeing, by this country among others, of a loan to be raised by Germany in order to make an immediate payment to France; and, if so, whether he made it clear to M. Loucheur that this country could accept neither of these proposals?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement regarding the reported conversations between himself and other members of His Majesty's Government and M. Loucheur; and whether it is true that he expressed approval of the French action in the Ruhr during the conversations?

Mr. BALDWIN: (replying for the Prime Minister, who, though present, was suffering from throat trouble)
I shall answer these questions together. M. Loucheur's visit was entirely unofficial, and only a general conversation took place. The question of the French action in the Ruhr was never raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it as a fact that the reports in the French and English Press that M. Loucheur went back with approval from the Prime Minister for the French action in the Ruhr is not a statement of fact?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have not seen any such statement.

FISHING INDUSTRY DISPUTE, ABERDEEN.

Mr. ROSE: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to recent disturbances in connection with the Fishing Industry at Aberdeen, in which the trawl owners in collusion with the skippers and first hands have refused to continue to work the fishing vessels as a protest against the landing of German catches at that port, thus causing unemployment and distress to many hundred of fishermen and firemen who are wage earners and not profit sharers; that these men, though there is no strike or lock-out, and they have no dispute either with their employers or their officers, have been refused donation benefit by his Department; and will he, under the circumstances, give instructions which will remove an undeserved injustice to a large number of industrious and law-abiding workers?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware of the disturbances to which the hon. Member refers. Claims to unemployment benefit by the men affected were disallowed by the Insurance Officer on the ground that the disqualification under the Trade Dispute Clause applied in their case. This decision has been upheld by the local
Court of Referees, and the association to which the men belong has appealed against the decision to the Umpire, whose decision will be final and conclusive. I have no power to give any direction to the Umpire, who is an independent officer appointed by the Crown, but I am making arrangements to have the inquiry expedited with a view to obtaining an early decision.

Mr. ROSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the decision will be made?

Sir M. BARLOW: As speedily as possible. It usually does not take more than a few days.

Mr. MACPHERSON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary for Health (Scotland) what is the latest information with regard to the fishing strike at Aberdeen, and what steps the Government propose to take?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that the whole cause of the difficulty is the landing of fish from foreign trawlers and that the German trawler is entitled now to trawl in the Moray Firth while the British or Scottish trawler is not allowed to trawl, and that this is not only unjust, but peculiarly offensive to the fishermen, who did so much for the country in the War?

Captain ELLIOT: I apologise for my absence. I did not realise that questions were going through so fast.

Mr. PRINGLE: You ought to have been here all the time.

Captain ELLIOT: My most recent information is that the Town Council of Aberdeen have appointed a special committee who are conferring with the interests concerned in order to consider the possibility of reaching a settlement. The Department concerned are in touch with the situation, but no request for their intervention has been made by the trawl owners, the fishermen, or the buyers as far as I am aware. The police are taking necessary steps to preserve order.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it necessary for the Government to wait? Is not the situation sufficiently serious for them to take action?

Captain ELLIOT: The town council has been considering the matter and has arranged to defer taking action till to-day, Monday. It seemed to be inadvisable to complicate unnecessarily the situation by Government interference where action was proceeding by those principally concerned.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Will the Government consider bringing in a Bill to prohibit German boats from bringing fish into any port?

Captain ELLIOT: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I address the question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TREATMENT OF CHRISTIANS.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that the reply made to the Note addressed to the Soviet Government in regard to the persecution of the Christians was of such a nature that its acceptance was refused; and whether he has any statement to make as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Soviet Government?

Mr. McNEILL: The matter referred to in the question has raised very serious considerations which are engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is not possible to make any further statement for the moment.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it a fact that the Note addressed to His Majesty's Government was of such a nature that His Majesty's representative refused to accept it?

Mr. McNEILL: It is true that he refused to transmit it to the home Government.

BRITISH TRAWLER "JAMES JOHNSON " (ARREST).

Major ENTWISTLE: (by Private Notice)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Government are taking over the illegal arrest of the steam trawler "James Johnson" on the
31st March last by the Russians off the Murman coast; and whether the captain of H.M.S. "Godetia" has received instructions to demand personally and insist on the return of the trawler and crew immediately; and whether the Admiralty propose to send reinforcements to the Murman coast for the purpose of effectually securing redress from the Russian Government for this and previous arrests?

Mr. McNEILL: Upon receipt of news of the arrest, the British Agent at Moscow was at once instructed by telegraph to make immediate inquiries, and his report is being awaited. The reply to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.

Major ENTWISTLE: Is this not a matter which concerns the Admiralty? Is the Government aware that this arrest took place on the day of the "Godetia" arriving, and that the whole circumstances were an insult to the British flag, and is the British Navy going to take this sort of thing lying down?

Mr. McNEILL: As I informed my hon. Friend, immediate inquiries have been made, and a report is being awaited. It is better to know what has happened before we take further steps.

Major ENTWISTLE: Assuming the facts are as stated, there is no question about the facts in this case. The Russians are setting up a 12 miles territorial limit which we do not recognise. This question has already arisen on several previous occasions of illegal arrest. Are the Government not going to do anything except what they have done in the past, namely, to make official representations which amount to nothing? Will not the Government now take definite steps? Can I have a reply from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Sir F. BANBURY: Can the Under-Secretary say how long he intends to wait before he takes action?

Mr. McNEILL: Until we know what has happened.

Major ENTWISTLE: Can I have an answer from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has received an answer.

At the end of Questions—

Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the question of the illegal arrest by the Russians on the 31st March last of the steam trawler "James Johnson," and the inadequate measures being taken by the Government in respect thereto.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion under Standing Order No. 10. From the information which the hon. and gallant Member himself has given, this has been a continuing grievance.

Major ENTWISTLE: No, not this arrest.

Mr. SPEAKER: Complaint is made in regard to some new action on the part of a foreign Government in reference to this matter.

Major ENTWISTLE: This arrest has no connection whatever with the other arrests.

Mr. SPEAKER: If Standing Order No. 10 were to be used in this way, we might be asked to go to war once a week!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The urgency here arises out of the inadequate naval protection given to our fishermen in the White Sea. The Admiralty for some reason withdrew the naval protection, and this arrest occurred during its removal. We protest against this removal, and I submit that there is a case of urgency for the discussion of this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, by his statement, shown that this has been a grievance for some time past.

Mr. PRINGLE: I submit that representations were made to the Government against the withdrawal of Admiralty protection. These representations were rejected on the ground that the fears expressed were unfounded. Now individual action has been taken by a foreign Government which shows that these fears were well founded, and is it not in accordance with Standing Order No. 10 when some act is done by a foreign Government that the matter becomes urgent and in these circumstances are we not entitled to call attention to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member refers to a foreign Government, these things might happen all over the world. This is not a proper matter for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Another occasion for debate may occur.

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that on the occasion of a foreign Government acting to the prejudice of British subjects the failure of our Government to make representations is not a question that arises under Standing Order No. 10?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will not allow the hon. Member to draw me into an argument on anything further than the actual case. I am of opinion that this case does not come under Standing Order No. 10, and I will not go any further.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Can I have an answer to my question from the Prime Minister concerning the dumping of fish by German boats?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Cannot I have a private notice question to-morrow?

RELIEF WORK, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. A. Y. ALEXANDER: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a skilled workman, Albert Haydock, of View Road, Sheffield, was on Thursday, 8th March, charged before the Sheffield Court with refusing to perform a prescribed task set for him by the Ecclesall Board of Guardians, and for neglecting to maintain his wife and family when there was opportunity to work; that the magistrates inflicted a fine of £5 or, in default, a month's imprisonment; that Haydock subsequently surrendered to undergo the sentence of imprisonment; that the work Haydock refused was the subject of negotiation between the trade union and public bodies concerned; that. Haydock refused to work, on a question of principle, as to the conditions which at present apply to the work; that Hay-dock's Poor Law relief was stopped by the guardians, and on representations made by them to the Labour Exchange his unemployment benefit was withdrawn; that under a decision of the Labour Exchange authorities this man's unemployment benefit was afterwards restored, from which it would appear that his refusal to accept the task work
was entirely justified; whether he is aware that a large number of other cases are involved in this decision, and further, whether sufficient task work is provided by Poor Law authorities to absorb all unemployed skilled and unskilled workmen in receipt of Poor Law relief, and, if not, under what Regulations or authority invidious selections are made from the ranks of skilled workmen for the purpose of task work at lower rates than trade union wages for unskilled work; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the abrogation of principles for which trade unions have fought for decades, and to remove the injustice in the particular case in question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. It is within the discretion of the guardians to require a task of work to be performed as a condition of the receipt of out-door relief, and the relief paid by them is calculated not as wages for the task performed but in accordance with the needs of the applicant and his dependants. The selection of persons to be required to perform such a task is also within the discretion of the guardians, but in the present case, I am informed, that a short-period task of three days is being required from all able-bodied male persons receiving relief in the area. I do not at present see any grounds for my intervention.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three days is a weekly test; that it is set every week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not for the same people.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have information to that effect. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular man surrendered as a test case, and that hundreds of other cases are hanging upon it, and whether he considers that a trade unionist should give away his principles, fought for for decades—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech! "]

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AND IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make
a statement as to the proposed meeting of Prime Ministers and as to the Imperial Economic Conference.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am glad to be able to inform the House that it has now been found possible to arrange for the proposed Imperial Economic Conference, and also for a meeting of the Imperial Conference, similar to that held in 1921, to take place this year
The two conferences will be held concurrently, and it has been agreed that the opening date should be 1st October.
It is anticipated that all the Dominions and India will be represented at the Imperial Economic Conference, and, with the exception of New Zealand, at the Imperial Conference also. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister of New Zealand does not expect to be able to attend the latter, but I hope that all the other Prime Ministers will be present.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Crown Colonies will be represented?

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether at the Imperial Conference the question of Imperial defence will be considered?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, most certainly.

Captain BERKELEY: Since the Prime Minister is unable to attend the Conference will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of inviting the High Commissioner of New Zealand to attend in his place?

Mr. BALDWIN: We will leave that to the Prime Minister to decide.

JUTE INDUSTRY DISPUTE, DUNDEE.

Mr. MOREL: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make any statement as to the lock-out in the Dundee jute industry and as to the prospects of an early settlement of the dispute.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am glad to have this opportunity of making a statement on this matter. As the hon. Member is aware, I have kept in constant touch with
the developments in this dispute and the efforts which have been made to effect a settlement. On Thursday last, after discussion with both sides, Sir David Shackleton, on my behalf, arranged a joint conference of the employers' and workers' organisations, when the whole position was examined. At the end of the conference certain proposals were put forward for the consideration of both sides as a basis for the resumption of work. These proposals are under the consideration of the parties.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

On 2nd May, to call attention to the recent discharges in the Royal Navy Enid the Royal dockyards, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir C. Kinloch-Coake.]

RATING AND TAXATION OF LAND VALUES.

On 2nd May, to call attention to the Rating and Taxation of Land Values, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. EmlynJones.]

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES.

On 2nd May, to call attention to the experience of other countries in respect of Nationalised Industries, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Wallace.]

Orders of the Day — DANGEROUG DRUGS AND POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended (in the standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I am not opposing this Bill, but there is a matter which I think should be made clear in connection with the medical profession. In passing a Bill such as this we have to be careful that we are not interfering unduly with the liberty of medical men. I hope that the Home Secretary will be good enough to inform the House whether there is still any intention in the new Regulations under this Act to draw a distinction between medical practitioners who are in practice and those who are not. I do not think that the law draws any such distinction. Once a man's name is on the medical register he is entitled to practise, and though he may have retired he does occasionally practise. The distinction is sometimes made between medical men who are in practice and those who are assumed to have retired, there is no such legal distinction, I believe, and even in so far as they are supposed to have retired, men may, and occasionally do, practise, for the service of humanity, possibly, or otherwise. Moreover, they may be engaged in scientific research of one kind or another. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to satisfy some doubts which have been put to me by the medical profession as to whether there will be in the Regulations under this Act any retention of that distinction. I protest that the mere fact that some medical practitioners out of the whole 40,000 are supposed to be addicted to drugs would hardly be sufficient reason for limiting the opportunities of the 40,000 for obtaining these substances for legitimate purposes. Many of the purposes to which these poisonous drugs are or may be put are quite legitimate even if the drugs are not necessarily to be prescribed for administration to other persons. That is the first question. I have no doubt that some hon. Member who is more acquainted with the medical profession than I am would have put
this question, even had I not done so. I have been moved to ask it by actual inquiries made of me by registered medical practitioners who are in doubt on the matter.
The second question is this: This Bill is, of course, an extreme case of the evil of legislation by reference, and I cannot pretend, I confess with some humility, to have searched out all the Acts to which reference is made in the Bill. In particular, I have here no explanation given why the poisonous drugs and other substances to which this Bill will apply, and in connection with which extremely rigorous penalties are to be inflicted, should be, as they are, certified in the schedule of an old Pharmacy Act of 1868. A great deal has happened in the realm of scientific discovery since that date. Even the medical profession and the British Pharmacop$a have made changes since 1868. It seems a little out of date, there fore, that we should apply these stringent penalties to a list of poisonous substances specified more than half a century ago. Does this list include anything like all the poisonous substances now known to the medical profession? Would it not be still possible, in one of the Regulations under the Bill, to draw up a revised schedule, with the advice of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons, which would be a little more 'n accordance with medical and chemical knowledge than could be a list drawn up in 1868? I ask for enlightenment on this point for the benefit of the House and of the public. There has been some misgiving amongst registered practitioners on the subject.
There is another subject under another head. In Clause 2, Sub-section (1, d), we have it made an offence to
 aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission in any place outside Great Britain of any offence punishable under the provisions of any corresponding law in force in that place
or to do
any act preparatory to or in furtherance of any act which if committed in Great Britain would constitute an offence against this Act.
That seems to place our law at the disposal of any other country which at any time may pass an enactment making, say, alcohol, a dangerous drug. That is, perhaps, a farcical illustration. Take, for instance, laws which might be passed in
Turkey or China. or Japan or the United States. I do not know whether there is any precedent for enacting in advance such severe penalties for aiding, abetting and counselling the commission of any offence punishable under the provisions, of any corresponding law in some other country. It seems to be opening a very wide door. It may be that I have an imaginary fear on the subject, but as we are the legislative authority, I think we might pay a little more attention to the principles on which our criminal law is based. On these points I hope that the Home Secretary will give me some information—not a narcotic, but at any rate a soothing assurance. Should he do that, I do not think he will commit any offence under his own Measure, for I am sure that anything he says would not be a poisonous drug or a dangerous substance. There are other points [...] if I were bettor acquainted with the medical profession, might very likely be brought forward. I can only apologise to hon. Members who represent the medical profession more especially in this House for venturing thus, with all humility, to plunge in where they, perhaps, ought to have been first to tread.

Sir SYDNEY RUSSELL-WELLS: I would like to compliment the last speaker on the interest he has shown in medicine, but I cannot compliment him on being up-to-date. If the hon. Member had taken advantage of the opportunity of going to the Vote Office and getting a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee, he would not have made the speech to which we have just listened.

Mr. WEBB: I have it here.

4.0. P M

Sir S. RUSSELL-WELLS: There is, for instance, the Clause which distinguishes between the medical man in actual practice and other medical men. That Clause, as it appeared in the Bill when first printed, has vanished, and no distinction is now made between the two classes of medical men. Another matter on which I cannot compliment the hon. Member is the fact that he lid not take the trouble to look up the Acts to which reference is made in the Bill. Had he done so, he would have found that there are certain schedules in the old Act to which he has referred, but that those schedules have been revised several times since they were first drawn up. Of course the matter of the legislation of
other countries raises questions in one's mind. It did so in my case; but when I went into the subject, I found it was absolutely necessary that there should be some such Clause if we were to have any Convention between different countries for the suppression of what is undoubtedly a pernicious practice. The Bill refers only do certain drugs which are specifically mentioned. On behalf of the medical Members, who have taken a very active interest, in this Bill, I feel it my duty, as the Chairman of the Committee of Medical Members did in Committee, to express our great appreciation of the courtesy and consideration which the Home Secretary showed to us when we made representations. He went into all our objections on behalf of the medical profession most fully. He considered all that we said most sympathetically, and he has adopted, I think I may say in spirit, every suggestion which we put before him. I think he felt that we were anxious to help him in making a Bill which would remove these abuses, and that we were not anxious in any way to encourage an extremely pernicious traffic. It is impossible to say that all points have been provided for. In a complicated Measure like this, for it is complicated although short, affecting so many professions, so many places, and such a vast number of people, it is almost certain that in actual practice little difficulties may arise but, if such difficulties do arise, I am perfectly certain that under the present Administration they will be removed, so far as possible, by administrative order. I want to thank the Home Secretary also on behalf of the medical profession for removing the Regulation which prevents doctors prescribing for themselves. Just as the hon. Member saw that was a very great difficulty, so we all felt that it was a difficulty, and, when we laid the matter before the Home Secretary, and we were able to point out to him that it would cause endless inconvenience, endless hardship, and all sorts of anomalies, and would not be likely to effect the object which we had in view, he met us most frankly and undertook to issue a countervailing Regulation, which, I believe, he has done. I sincerely hope that the Bill, as amended, will now go through the House rapidly, and that it will achieve the object for which it is being passed.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): My hon. Friend behind me (Sir S. Russell-Wells) has answered the questions which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has put to me. Bad I been aware that he took so much interest in the affairs of the medical profession, I would have been delighted to consult him beforehand, but, as I was not, I consulted some of the representatives of the profession who came to me and met me on this matter. I am glad that I have their approval of the alterations that have been made in the Bill. With regard to the Regulation, I am taking the usual steps to have it done away with. If the hon. Member had studied with the same laborious care the proceedings in Committee as he does most other subjects to which he addresses himself, he would have found that I have omitted the words "in actual practice" from the Bill, and that, therefore, that difficulty has gone.

Mr. WEBB: I asked whether those words remained in any Regulations.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the House allows the Regulation which will have to be laid on the Table—I shall have to issue a new Regulation—then the distinction will be entirely gone both from the Bill and the Regulations. The hon. Member also asked me about the schedule of drugs. The schedule was made up under Section 2 of the original Act of 1868, and it has been brought up to date to 1908. tinder Section 2 of that Act it is possible, on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Society Council, to add to the schedule. If they can convince the Department that any other drugs ought to be added, they can be added under Order in Council. The other point which the hon. Member raised was on Clause 2, paragraph (d), with regard to any corresponding law in other countries. If he will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (2), he will see that the corresponding law is very fully explained. It means
 any law stated in a certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Government of any country outside Great Britain to he a law providing for the control and regulation in that country of the manufacture, sale, use, export and import of drugs in accordance with the provisions of the international Opium Convention signed at The Hague, on the twenty-third day of January. 1912.
I think that should provide sufficient safeguards to do away with his appre-
hension that any foreign country may pass a law which we shall be obliged to observe, because at any rate it has to be in accordance with the International Opium Convention.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that the facile passage of this, the first Bill of the Home Office this Session, will not induce the Home Secretary to produce from the pigeon-holes at the Home Office all their little Bills for facilitating the creation of crimes by making Acts of Parliament. This is the sort of Bill which we have been accustomed to in the past as introduced by private Members, and it augurs ill if the Home Office is now going to take up these Private Members' Bills and pass them year after year. A predecessor of mine in the representation of Newcastle-under-Lyme used to make it his rule to oppose all new Bills and vote for the repeal of all old Bills, and I am sorry to see the Homo Secretary coming forward as the protagonist of the doctrine, "Let us pass new laws at any price." This is simply a Bill to make the traffic in cocaine more difficult, and it must he judged by its results, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is only one of a series of Bills of the same nature. In the old days we used to have as a hardy annual a Bill for putting down the White Slave traffic. That has now gone. All the legislation ever asked for has been passed, but nothing has come of the legislation. Now the nerves and tone of the country have got to be stimulated, and. we shall have, year after year, legislation of this kind to put down, once and for all, this cocaine traffic. It is not the people who take the cocaine who are being doped, but it is the public all the time. The panic is got up by the stunt Press, and thereafter Parliament is compelled to listen to Bills such as this.
There is a method in the stunt Press dope. They want to distract the attention of the public from things that really matter by trotting out this White Slave traffic or this dope traffic scare. I do not mind. You can pass these Bills year after year, but you will never any longer be able to delude the people into believing that what is wrong with the world can be cured by stopping the traffic in cocaine, when all the time you have under your very noses the collapse of our present system working itself out by an increase in unemployment and in the
destitution of the people of the country. If half as much attention were directed to preventing unemployment and destitution as we have directed towards stopping this traffic in cocaine, we might get a real solution of the social problem. These sham solutions are all very well to delude the people who do not think, but the public are beginning to look a little bit below the surface, and they will not be satisfied with a solution of the social problem which is obtained by sending to prison people who traffic in cocaine.

Mr. CLAYTON: The Home Secretary has made concessions in an Amendment to the medical service and to the pharmaceutical chemists. I want to ask him to make the same concessions to the licensed Wholesale drug houses. At the present time, those wholesale drug houses are lumped together with the illicit dealers in drugs and are liable to the same penalties.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This question was raised in Committee, and I then gave the reasons why I thought it was impossible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. A breach of the conditions of the licence by one of the wholesale drug houses might be as serious as any other breach under the Act.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There are only three small points to which I want to draw attention. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred to social problems generally and called this stunt legislation. I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing such a useful bit of legislation and the House generally on facilitating its passage with so little trouble. If only hon. Members on the opposite benches world help us to get through with equal facility legislation piecemeal, the social problem would be solved all the more quickly. It is by taking matters piecemeal and dealing with definite injuries when they arise and where we think that they can be dealt with effectively and practicably, as has been the case with this Measure, that we are able by degrees to get at the social problem. It is the old story of trying to pull out the hairs of the horse's tail all at once. You cannot do it, but, if you pull them out hair by hair, you eventually get the horse's tail removed. It is not stunt
legislation. I wish we could imagine, as the hon. and gallant Member in calm ignorance imagines, that this is stunt legislation, or, in other words, that there is not this danger that is attributed to this traffic. It is one of the most serious dangers at the present time, and it is all the more serious in that it has not penetrated to the brain of the hon. and gallant Member. It is just this kind of danger that I fear, and not the dangers of which we hear so much from the Opposition Benches. It is the subtle and insidious dangers which are, perhaps, sapping the vitality of individuals whom we meet in ordinary life, among our own friends, and in the street, not thinking that there is anything serious the matter with them, but wondering why they are beginning to show themselves slack about things. After a time we begin to think that there must be something seriously wrong with them. A man of businesslike habits suddenly throws off those habits and his business goes to pot. It is only after the "something wrong" has become absolutely fixed in his constitution that it is found to be dim to this subtle drug practice.
I had a striking example of the effects of the practice as a medical student when walking the hospitals. On our round one day there came a seedy-looking medical man, dishevelled, untidy and unkempt, with a quaint far-away look in his eyes. He came round with us and after he had gone out of the ward the physician turned to us and said, "That was one of the most brilliant men of his time; he took all sorts of scholarships and honours; he held high appointments, and he did brilliant work. He went to private practice, and he was afflicted by a series of disasters—not through his own fault—and he is now a victim of the morphia habit, and is trying to cure it." The physician also told us of the difficulty of effecting such a cure, and gave us a series of illustrations. If by means of this Measure, the Home Secretary has done his bit in helping us to get at this evil, then I think we are indeed tackling one of the most serious national dangers in the right way, and I hope it may be effective. It is suggested from the Opposition Benches that this Measure is not going to the root of the problem; that it is only a punitive and repressive Measure, and that the only way to tackle such a problem is to go to its root and stop the
production of the drugs, the use of which we are seeking to repress. I think that will be a serious line to go upon with regard to future legislation, and the House must inevitably look for a further campaign on that line on the subject of this danger. The hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Webb) said that naturally we doctors knew more of the details of such a Measure than laymen. I am rather surprised that the party he represents have not brought in the assistance of their two medical Members in criticising this Bill. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) has already made remarkable contributions to the business of this House, and we should have been glad to hear any criticisms which he had to offer of the Bill. I do not think he would endorse the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
There are two points to which I wish to direct attention. One is the reduction in the penalties for certain minor offences under the Bill. As the Bill was originally drafted, there was an extremely heavy penalty—a fine of £1,000 or penal servitude, I think—for a series of offences including some which might quite well be classed as trivial. We pointed this out to the Home Secretary, and he has brought in an Amendment. There are now two series of penalties for two series of offences. As the Bill originally stood serious trouble might have arisen in this respect. A man through carelessness or through the fatigue that comes after the daily round of work, might have failed to enter particulars in a book or to have kept some of the records required under the Bill and for that offence might have been subject to the highest penalty. The original idea was that the magistrates in such cases would not inflict the highest penalty, but there are some things to be said about that view. One, is that there are cases where even the magistrates in some out-of-the-way places might make genuine mistakes, and where a genuine grievance would arise, and the result of the genuine grievance might be that. chemists and medical men would come to the conclusion that this Measure involved great danger to them. They would point out that. So-and-so had had an extraordinarily heavy penalty inflicted upon him for a comparatively trivial offence, and they would say," We will have
nothing more to do with it." Thus, chemists and medical men would have been definitely discouraged from doing their duty in dealing with these drugs. It may be said that such cases would never arise, but such case as the following might arise. Supposing a man were definitely a drug-taker, and committed an offence and was fined. Supposing he represented in his defence that he had only committed an offence of the trivial kind, by inadvertence and carelessness. Although the court might give its decision against him, nevertheless that man might raise a very great public agitation on the ground that he had suffered the major penalty for a minor offence, and that might have a detrimental and discouraging effect on the right and proper use of the drugs by druggists and medical men. It is a much sounder policy where there is such a very wide range of offences as is dealt with in the Bill, to have two sets of penalties for two sets of offences.
The other point to which I wish to refer is contained in the Clause 4, Sub-section (2), of the Bill, which, if enacted, will meet a very serious and long-standing trouble. Under this Clause every bottle containing medicine which includes any of these poisons is to be labelled with the name of the poison and with particulars as regards the proportion of the poison to the whole preparation. That meets the difficulty with which we have always had to contend with regard to patent medicines. The medical profession and the chemists always insisted, in the public interest, that it was essential that patent medicines, in view of the protection which they have from the law, should he bound to show their ingredients. On the other hand, those who stand for patent medicines, and the commerce which they represent., hold that such a course is not in the interests of British trade, and that it would involve revealing trade secrets. Thus, there are two conflicting claims of two conflicting public interests. This Bill meets the conflicting claims. The pill maker, or the patent medicine maker, may still put all sorts of confections and infusions into his medicines—all the frogs' livers, the flowers, the herbs, and the various other things into his mixture—without revealing the secret. But as regards a dangerous drug he is bound to give the proportion of that dangerous drug present in the mixture. That meets our
case, and, I believe, also meets the case of the proprietors of the patent medicine, and therefore it is a very remarkable instance of sound legislation meeting two opposing views in the public interest.. I am very glad to add my own words to those of the hon. Member for the London University (Sir S. Russell-Wells), on behalf of the whole medical profession, thanking the Home Secretary for the action he has taken in amending the Bill.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) expressed his surprise that a Bill of this nature should get through the House with such facility. No doubt he recalls the time when on another Bench and with less responsibility he was able to bold up legislation so successfully. Perhaps he now longs to repeat his former triumphs, but realising the responsible position he now holds on the Front Opposition Bench is prevented from doing so and he feels surprised that none of us should at least try to earn the honours which formerly distinguished him Why is this Bill passing through the House with such facility? It is just because there is no vested interest or only a very small vested interest behind the traffic which is affected by it. The vested interest behind this drug traffic is so unimportant and uninfluential that it is not able to stop the passing of a reform like this. I am led to contrast the facility with which this Measure has been accepted and passed through this Chamber, with the delay and the retardation with which the Report of the Committee on Patent Medicines has been met. This Bill deals with perhaps only one-tenth of the evils arising from the drug traffic. A few actresses and poets represent the only vested interest affected by this Bill. The money interest and the Press interest and the merchants' interest are practically nil. It is mostly an underground traffic with no vested interest to support it, and it is being attacked with enormous penalties—I am merely stating face—and with a determination on the part of this House to suppress the evil. I recall the Report of the Patent Medicines Committee. Case after case was brought before the Committee which showed that one of the greatest evils spreading throughout this country to-day, is the evil of the very drug traffic with which this Bill does not deal at all. I
appeal to the Government, which has taken up the matter in this Bill to go a long step further to take in hand the Report of that Committee and to introduce legislation with a view to remedying the evils which are there brought out. That report came out at a very unfortunate time. It was issued in July, 1914. The report actually calls attention to the vested interests which were supporting the patent medicine traffic—the vested interests of the Press, the wholesale manufacturers, and the retail sellers —and it suggests that the measure of publicity which would be given to that report would indicate the vested interests in the Press supporting the patent medicine traffic. There was evidence that cocaine existed in some of these preparations. There was evidence that medicated wines were nearly all frauds, and the term "medicated" was used in order to attract buyers.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading of a Bill we must deal with what is in the Bill, and not with what should be in it. The hon. Member may make his appeal, but he must not enter in detail into the merits of legislation on another subject.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am sorry if I have transgressed. I simply wish to call the attention of the Government to the fact that, while they are on the route towards reform, there is something greater which they might tackle and I think the time is ripe now to tackle it. The House is well educated in the evil of the drug traffic, and if the Government take up the report to which I have referred, and found a Bill upon it, they will earn not only the gratitude of the House but the gratitude of the country and the gratitude of a great many sufferers.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The House is entitled to pass this particular Bill, but I hope it will not be taken advantage of to bring in a lot of other Bills dealing with all sorts of things about which we know nothing. I do not agree with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) except as regards one portion. That is the portion in which he implores the Home Secretary not to allow his officials to bring forth all the old Bills which they may have in pigeon-holes and to take advantage of the
kindness with which all sections of the House have treated the right hon. Gentleman's maiden effort at legislation. I think I can trust my right hon. Friend in that respect, and I hope I am right in thinking that he will not take advantage of the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member who spoke last. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) need not be so very much afraid of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I know the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme probably better than my hon. and gallant Friend does, and, after all, what does his speech amount to? He would not say anything against the Bill—he felt in his own mind that it was as good a piece of legislation on this subject as this House could pass—but he must oppose the Government and he must say something against the Government. I am sure I can figure out what passed in his mind. He said to himself, "Here is an opportunity for bringing in my solution for all evils, and that is taxation of land values." He intended to point out that if we had taxation of land values there would be no occasion to bring in a Bill dealing with cocaine. I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member was not right in one way, because if his Taxation of Land Values Bill had been brought in and carried, nobody would have any money, and therefore nobody could buy any drugs, for which reason probably it would have even a better effect on this particular evil than the Bill of my right hon. Friend. I do not myself believe that this sort of Bill is going to stop the traffic altogether. I think it will go a good way towards it and make it much more difficult for people to obtain drugs, but where a man has got the drug habit—I am not a medical man, but- I think I am right—he is going to get a drug if he possibly can, and it will take a good deal of legislation to prevent it.

Dr. CHAPPLE: This prevents him from acquiring the habit.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know. I hope it will, hut human nature is weak, and I am not so sure that it will have the good effect that some people think. At any rate, it is a step in the right direction, and as long as my right hon. Friend
does not bring in any more of these Bills, and lets us have a little breathing time, I shall be satisfied.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In the first, place, this Bill is a consolidation Bill. There are 19 old Acts of Parliament which are consolidated. It was brought forward last year in the House of Lords and was then referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which Committee recommended that the Bill be allowed to proceed. The larger part of the Bill is consolidation, which accounts for it being such a lengthy Measure. I am afraid that it is possible that many hon. Members have not had time to read the whole of the Bill during the Easter holidays, but it repays study, and there are certain passages in it which I am sure hon. Members would like to read. For instance, the subtlety with which, throughout the Bill, a careful distinction is made between "to take or kill" and "to attempt to take or kill" fish will, I am sure, appeal to every fisherman, and there is a passage on page 8 of the Bill, where one of the offences under the Bill is that
 There must not be attached to any such box or crib any spur or tail wall, leader, or outrigger of a greater length than twenty feet from the upper or lower side of the box or crib.
I am sure such a passage as that would give any Member who studied it something to think about during his holidays. As I have said, a great part of the Bill is purely consolidation but it also makes certain changes in the law. In the first place, it improves the machinery for the constitution and reconstitution of fishery boards, and I believe that that is not a contentious provision. There are 52 fishery boards at present in existence. Of those, 38 are constituted under existing Fishery Acts, and for them the only alteration is to limit the number of county council representatives. Fourteen are
constituted by Provisional Order, and here the only difference is to have representatives of the anglers for what are described here as freshwater fish. The Bill also deals with a matter that has been decidedly contentious, but upon which I hope a settlement has now been reached, and that is pollution. It makes no difference to the old powers of sanitary authorities under the Rivers Pollution Act, and it makes no difference to the rights which private people have under the common law, but it does amend the Salmon Fisheries Act of 1861. That Act made it an offence to pollute waters containing salmon to such an extent as to poison or kill fish, but the polluter, if I may coin such a word, can plead under the existing law that he has a legal right to do so and that he has done his best to render the polluting matter harmless. Practically there was no preventing him from continuing the pollution if he could prove that it cost him more than £100 to render it harmless. This Bill makes several changes. It applies to all rivers containing fish—not the salmon rivers alone. The defendant may clear himself, if he is using the best practical means within a reasonable cost, but the £100 limit is abolished. The Bill also provides for a notice to the fishery board or to the Minister of any new effluents, but, to stop frivolous prosecutions, only the fishery boards or a man with a certificate from the Minister that he is interested can prosecute. I am afraid these details are complicated and intricate, but they are the result of a compromise. They do not give fishermen all that they ask, but they improve their present position, and they are the result of an agreement arrived at with the Federation of British Industries and also by the fishery boards.
So much for saving fish from poison. The next alteration in the law that this Bill makes is one to save them from another danger, namely, over-fishing. Clause 59 of the Bill gives the board power to extend the weekly rest for salmon to 72 hours. Clause 62 gives the board power to limit the number of licences for netting. That is a provision about which I know there is a certain amount of contention. At present a board mast issue a licence to anyone who asks for it and pays. Now the board does a great deal to improve the river by the various methods which this Bill enables it to apply, and it is not fair that any
newcomer or any unlimited number of newcomers should be able to come and get a licence or licences. Besides that, where netting is overdone, everyone connected with the fishing is damaged, including the net fishermen themselves, and that is the reason why this power to impose restriction as to numbers is put in. After all, I do not think the net fishermen have any real cause for alarm. The Clause is merely permissive. The net fishermen are represented on every fishery board, and it is obviously not to the interest of the board to put on such restriction unless it is absolutely necessary, because all these licences bring in revenue, and a fishery board, like everyone else, wants to get all the revenue it can. Then there are great restrictions put upon the enforcement of this limit in these cases. Any order that has to be made has I o be confirmed by the Minister, and under certain circumstances he must hold a public inquiry about it. I do not, therefore, think the net fishermen really have anything tangible to be afraid of.
One more difference this Bill makes in the law. It is a step in the direction of democracy among fish. Formerly, the law gave precedence to aristocratic fish like the salmon and the trout. Now, it also takes care of the bourgeois carp or the plebeian roach or any other humble citizen of the river, even a member of the criminal classes like the pike, and it does not insult them by calling them "coarse fish," a name by which they are often known; it speaks of them here as "other freshwater fish," and for the first time their rights are recognised. They get some of the protection that was formerly lavished only on their smart and fashionable compatriots. Also for the first time those who fish for them get represented on the boards, and that is a provision that is ardently desired by the many anglers' associations throughout the country, mainly from our great towns. Those anglers' associations form no mean body, their membership numbering some 600,000, and they share with the peer, the millionaire, or the bishop all the anxieties and all the excitements of the gentle art of fishing. After all, fishing means to hundreds of thousands an escape from the drab surroundings of their work and from the toil and care of daily life. It takes them into pleasant, healthy scenes and gives them wholesome air and whole_ some exercise. I confess that I am one
of those who always think better of a man if I know he is a sportsman. What is the difference between a sportsman and a mere player of games of skill? I think the difference is that, in the constitution of a sportsman there must be a touch of the naturalist, and' there is no sport of which that is more true than it is of fishing. After all, the man who spends an afternoon by the river studying the habits of the fish gets an extra pleasure and an extra interest in life. He is a better man for it when he returns to his daily work, and it is for such as these that I commend this Bill to the sympathetic consideration of the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his scat, could he explain to me what these words in Clause 91 mean, namely:
The expression 'rod and line' means single rod and line"?
What else could it mean?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps we had better take that a little later.

Sir R. SANDERS: I think that is a Committee point.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not much to say in criticism of this Bill. I very much agree with the last remarks that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and, in pursuance of that theme of wholesome air and exercise and the interests of the sportsmen, is there not one thing he could acid to the Bill? Is there any real objection to trout fishing on Sunday? After all, trout fishing is becoming more and more a popular pursuit for great masses of people. It seems rather hard that people who go out to get the fresh air and all the advantages of fishing, say, at Whitsuntide should be able to fish on Saturday and on Monday, but should have to kick their heels and be merely naturalists on Sunday. I think it is in one of Barrie's novels where a Scotch minister in a moment of aberration, while speaking about curling, talks of Sunday as a day lost. Sunday is a day lost to a great many fishermen who do not have many opportunities of fishing. For these reasons I think we might allow the harmless pursuit of trout fishing on Sunday.
The point to which I rose to draw the Minister's attention was in connection
with the question of pollution. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that a settlement had been arrived at, and with regard to a part of the question it may be true. There is, however, one Clause in connection with pollution to which he did not allude in his remarks, and that is Clause 55. There is considerable alarm among a good many important local authorities with regard to this Clause. A local authority is now required to render sewage harmless which flows into any stream, but the definition of stream does not now apply either to the sea or tidal waters. This Clause, in the first place, would enable the fishery authority to initiate prosecutions against a local authority, which is now the duty of the sanitary authority, and it would also, after a particular form of inquiry, bring the estuaries and the sea, and the mouth of rivers, under the definition of "stream."
There are a certain number of authorities in this country who are very much alarmed at this proposal, and one of them is Newcastle, which is typical, no doubt, of others. What they fear is that they may be put to enormous new and unexpected expense if there happens to be a tyrannous Fishery Board, which takes a very severe view of its duties. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can make any other form of concession in order to satisfy some of these great public authorities. What is proposed is that two persons appointed by himself and the Minister of Health shall hold an inquiry, and if the inquiry decides in favour of putting the estuary under the Fishery Board that Board will at once have conferred upon it these severe powers against important local authorities.
I do not know what concessions the right hon. Gentleman could make in order to satisfy these great authorities. No doubt it is a very serious thing for some of these authorities who are now discharging sewage into the sea, and if these new Regulations come into operation they may have to enter into very great expense in order to dispose of their sewage otherwise. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could agree to have these new orders laid before the House, or whether some greater check than what is proposed in the Bill could be introduced before any such powers are put into operation. I would say to the
right hon. Gentleman that probably the passage of this Bill would be much easier if he could manage to satisfy these great authorities who do not regard the Bill, as present drawn, as a settlement of the pollution question, and if he wants this Measure to pass easily perhaps he will undertake to consider some modification of that Clause.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am aware that this is a Consolidation Bill, and, as the Minister of Agriculture has already pointed out, we have had about 19 Statutes dealing with this subject since 1861. Consequently the effect, of introducing this Bill now is that this is about the only opportunity we shall have of making any changes with regard to the laws regulating fishing because probably no other Bill will be introduced for many years. We are told that there are about 600,000 anglers interested in this question, and when this Bill was before us last year they protested against Clause 35 which is known as the contracting-out Clause. They stated that such Clauses are much the same as were contained in Mr. Mundella's Bill in 1878 and they were the ruin of that Bill because they enabled so much contracting out that it rendered nugatory the idea of a close season for fresh water fish.
I am not a fisherman myself, but it has been represented to me by a gentleman who has been a fisherman all his life that if tie sport of angling is to remain sportsmanlike, there must be some regulation as to the number of hooks to a bait. He declars that it is quite unnecessary to have more than one kook. I am told that the effect of having more than one hook is that the, fish get wounded and scratched and contract disease, and contaminate the waters as well as other fish. It does seem to me that sonic Clause might be introduced in that direction providing that there shall be only one hook to each lure or bait. There is in Clause 59, Subsection (1) paragraph (q) a provision which enables the Fishery Board:
 to regulate the use in connection with fishing with rod and line of any lure or bait specified in the bye-law.
We do not want the Fishery Boards acting in different ways, and it seems to me to be desirable that there should be introduced a special regulation which might
be agreed to by anglers who are sportsmanlike providing that there shall only-be one hook to each lure or bait.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I certainly join most heartily with those who have spoken in support of the principle of this Bill, although I believe that, if conservancy be too strictly enforced, it may do more harm than good. Experience in North Wales bears out that statement. I wish particularly to refer to a special class known as the net fishermen, and this applies in particular to two rivers of which I have pretty close knowledge and with which I am directly concerned, namely, the River Teifi and the River Towy. On these two rivers there is an old-established industry by net fishermen, and I think this is the only place in the country where the fishermen operate from old-fashioned coracles. This particular industry has existed for several hundred years, and, curiously enough, the same families continue to be engaged in it. The result is that the people of these districts take great pride in this industry.
Under Clause 62, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, power is given to the Fishery Board to limit the number of net licences. In so far as it can be shown that the existing number of licences, and the existing practice in regard to this particular industry damages these rivers, I think it is only right that this power should be taken to protect the rivers, but my information is that in regard to these two particular rivers the question of any such damage does not arise from this kind of fishing. I am also told that these two particular rivers are very well stocked; in fact, they are now stocked better than they have ever been before. This power is to be given to the Fishery Board, and the men engaged in this industry on these two rivers are very much exercised in their minds that this power may be used in such a way as to deprive them of their livelihood. There are on the River Teifi about 140 people either directly engaged in the industry or dependent upon it, and they naturally feel considerable alarm at this provision. Power to limit the number of licences is given to the Fishery Board.
I am aware that in future the Fishery Board will contain representatives of the net fishermen, but the Bill says that the number shall not exceed one-third of the
total number of the members of the Fishery Board. It is therefore clear that if an occasion should arise when this question of limiting the number of net licences is considered, although the net fishermen representatives will be one-third of the Board, they may not he able to make their view prevail on the Board. I do not know how it is that somehow or other fishermen have the reputation of indulging in exaggeration, and I want to avoid that. I must, however, press the Minister, and I hope that before we close this Debate he will undertake to give this question his first consideration. I admit that the members of his Department have been most courteous to my hon. Friend and myself, who have taken this matter up, and we have from time to time tried to arrive at some agreement to meet the apprehensions felt by these men.
These are not the only two rivers which were originally affected. I understand that the Severn fishermen were also very much concerned in regard to the operation of this Bill, but those apprehensions have been met. I believe they were met by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture sent a representative down to see them, and discuss the matter with them. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be worth his while to repeat that with regard to the fishermen on these two rivers, because unless some further provision is made I am afraid that some of us will be put to the necessity of moving Amendments in Committee, and it would be much more satisfactory if the Minister of Agriculture would take this matter into his consideration in order to remove these apprehensions. The net fishermen are limited to seven miles from the estuary, whereas fishing goes on over a distance of 40 miles, and they are only allowed to carry on this kind of fishing for a small proportion of the week. Therefore I do not think it can be established that this particular industry is doing any permanent or serious damage to these rivers. If that is so, then I think the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to give the Ministry and the Fishery Board very wide powers when he asks us to give them powers which may deprive these fishermen of their means of livelihood.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I only rise to intervene for a very few minutes
in order to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider the effect of the drafting of Clause 55, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Treyelyan) has already drawn the attention of the House. We know what the Minister and his Department have in mind. The right hon. Gentleman quite clearly wishes to so purify the waters of certain rivers and the sea shore that fish may flourish in them.
5.0 P.M.
At the present moment at certain points it is stated that, although the sewage put into rivers and into the sea is perfectly innocuous from the point of view of public health, yet from the point of view of the encouragement of fishing it is poisonous. But there is inserted Clause 55, and if that. Clause becomes the law of the land, these local authorities will not only have to treat their sewage so that from the point of view of public health it is innocuous, but they will have to treat it further so that when it is mixed with the river, the estuary, or the sea, it will not diminish the supply of fish. That is a very important change. It is very small on paper, but if hon. Members will look at it from the point of view of public authorities, they will see that this Clause puts them, at any rate, in a very doubtful position. I intervene at the present moment because I have been led to do so by two authorities in my own constituency, both of whom may be affected by Clause 55. In any event, until the Minister assures them that they are not affected, they will be in a state of considerable trepidation. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that, whether this sewage is to be treated before it is put into the river or whether the outfall is to be changed, the expense is enormous. The capital expenditure of changing an outfall and adding, perhaps, three or four miles to a sewer is very large. If, on the other hand, works are put up for treatment of sewage, then not only is the capital expenditure large, but the annual expenditure is substantial. That is oppressive, especially for the smaller boroughs.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred to Newcastle, but I refer to two boroughs very much smaller than Newcastle—boroughs which will find the greatest difficulty in increasing their
debt or levying further taxation to meet the requirements of this Bill, supposing the local inquiry should decide that their sewage is detrimental to the stocking with fish of the river in the first place and the seaboard in the second place. I should be the very last person to rise in this House and suggest anything that would be detrimental to sport. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has sail, namely, that the more sport of this kind we have in the country the better it will be for all of us, the better for our bodies, our minds, and our souls. Therefore, so far as the endeavours he is making in this Bill to increase the facilities for sport and encourage the real, good, genuine sportsmen are concerned, I will back him through thick and thin and all the time. I hope he will be able to give us some assurance that Clause 55 will be considered for the purpose of protecting not only the interests, but the point of view of these boroughs which see in it a possible threat which, if carried out in relation to themselves, would present them with an almost impossible task. So far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, speaking generally, any support we can give will be given to it. The detail I have mentioned seems to me very important, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position in regard to it before he comes to a decision.

Mr. PETO: I rise to express my great satisfaction that this Bill, which has been talked about for a very long while, is at last in a fair way to become law. I am quite sure it has a welcome from every quarter of the House, which is a good augury and a good thing in itself. It does show that there is a general recognition of an identity of interest between the net and the rod fishermen, that you cannot have a satisfactory supply of fish for rod anglers without increasing the takes of the net fisherman, and that really their interests are identical. It is a great thing to see, instead of the protection of only one or two fish, that we are now having representatives on the board, are recognising a close season for coarse fish, and that all freshwater fish should be encouraged to increase so far as they can be reasonably made to harmonise the one with the other so as to encourage opportunities for sport for all classes and not only for one. That is a great advantage. On the question of
pollution, I have been somewhat sorry to hear the two speeches from the front Opposition bench, although I quite appreciate the point of these urban authorities. The question of the esturial waters that may be contaminated by sewage is quite a different one from the pollution of the higher reaches of a river by manufactories and works of that sort. At the present time, we have not in this Bill anything like as strong and water-tight a Clause in regard to pollution as the fisheries boards and angling associations would like. It has been a question of compromise, and there is common agreement now arrived at between the manufacturing and fishing interests. I should like to read a portion of a paragraph from a memorandum issued by the National Association of Fisheries Boards on this question, which is as follows:

No unprejudiced person can deny that a fair compromise has been effected between fishery interests and manufacturing interest on which matter the prosperity of the country so largely depends. Further, the Pollution Committee recently appointed by the Minister came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that much more would be effected by co-operation than by fighting for drastic legislation, and they have already experienced the benefits of co-operation.

Therefore, the manufacturing interests, although some of us think that Clause 8 goes a very long way towards recognising the vested interests in pollution which we do not like, have come to an agreement with the fishery interests, and I hope that under Clause 55 a similar satisfactory agreement will he made to deal with the cases of the urban authorities, which I recognise might in extreme instances be put to gigantic and even unjustifiable, expense. I do not suppose for a moment such a thing is contemplated, but I hope there will be an amicable adjustment between the fishery interests and the general interests of the community.

In Committee I shall ask the Minister to insert one small Amendment in Clause 59, which gives the power to the fisheries boards to make bye-laws. In a fisheries board of which I am a member we have found by practical experience that it is absolutely necessary, if we have a close time for salmon fishing with the net, that there should be power to the boards to prohibit the carrying in boats or vessels in the close season of nets for catching salmon. It is no use attempting to stop
the gap unless you do it properly. It only leads to a great deal of friction, and possibly to unnecessary expense for watching, and if we give fishery boards throughout the country with powers of that sort I think it would be a good thing. I hope not only that the Bill will secure a Second Beading, but that it will have an easy passage in Committee. I congratulate the Minister on the first Bill he has introduced, and express my hope that he will get it through as satisfactorily and successfully as appears likely to be the case. I am quite sure that, whatever may be the feeling of agriculture, the feeling of the fisheries and those interested in it will be that my right hon. Friend has made a very good beginning in protecting the fisheries with net and rod throughout the country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We had this Bill in very nearly the same form before us last year, and this Measure is really a heritage of the Minister of Agriculture when he assumed his present high office. I should like to ask for a little enlightenment as to the exact meaning of Clause 61, which deals with licences. Hon. Members will see that this requires that a licence shall be granted to all instruments which may be lawfully used for the purpose of taking fish. Does that mean that every trout rod is to have a licence, and that every schoolboy with a trout rod must be licensed? Has this Board power to charge anything they like, because, if so, it will be extremely undemocratic? You are not going to stop the real poacher injuring the fisheries, by compelling the honest angler to license his instrument for sport, and if I read the Clause aright I think this is a piece of bureaucratic legislation that is a blot on an otherwise pretty fair Bill. Furthermore, it will give the power to prevent what certain Boards may think another form of fishing. One hon. Member referred to over-fishing by net. I thought he was referring to over-fishing by rod and line. Every angler is apt to think that the water to which he goes is over-fished if anyone else can use it at all, and if this power to give licences is to be used to restrict the number of anglers on public waters it is very undemocratic and wrong. Further, if the licences are so expensive that poor people are just pre-
vented from indulging in this sport by having to purchase the licence, that is very wrong indeed. I hope the matter will be fully explored in Committee, and that, if possible, the right hon. Gentleman will reassure me when he comes to reply.
The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) made the proposal to prohibit the use of more than one hook in fishing, and was careful to say that he himself was not a fisherman, but that he had been told of this by a life-long angler. All I can say is that this life-long angler was either a crank or he was pulling the leg of the hon. and gallant Gentleman very badly. If we had any such nonsensical proposal in this Bill, all fishing by minnows or artificial baits, which in many waters is the only practical way in which salmon can be taken, would be prevented. As a matter of fact it would prevent double-hook flies being used. The less of this sort of interference we have in this Bill the better, and I hope the Minister will not listen to the proposal. I think anglers are very resourceful, and they can be trusted to use lures, baits and apparati generally in a perfectly sportsmanlike manner. In the last Bill grave exception was taken by a very important section of the community, namely, the retail-dealers in fish, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether their objections have now been met. I have not had the opportunity of comparing this Bill with the Bill of last year, to which I put down a Motion of rejection on this very ground, but, reading through the Bill, it seems to me that the offending Clause has been very greatly altered, if not taken out. Last year the objection of the retail fish trade—fishmongers, poulterers and others —was that the whole onus was put upon them, and that very old established business men who had been engaged in retailing this fish, without any complaint at all, could be pounced upon by the police, and accused of having fish illegally for sale, when they were not at all to blame, and the whole onus of proving their innocence was put upon them. That was, as I think, quite rightly objected to, and I rather think that their objection has been met, but I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
I suppose the most controversial part of this Bill will be that which was dealt
with by my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman who has just been speaking, namely, Clause 55. It is going, of course, to be a very difficult question. It refers particularly, I believe, to the tidal waters, or, I think, its application will be particularly to the case of tidal waters, which is absolutely necessary. There is, after all, some discretion given. Proceedings will have to be instituted. If it be a case of revolutionising the whole sewage machinery of a small local authority, and putting it to an enormous expense, naturally, I should think, the case against them would fail; but do not let us still further cut down the powers to prevent this horrible pollution of rivers. This is not only a case of protecting the rights of fishermen. I think it, perfectly horrible that a fresh, clear, running stream of water should be polluted by sewage. It may kill the fish. If it kills the fish, what is to be the effect on children bathing? One of the finest gifts of nature to-day is a clear, running stream of water. Pure limpid water is celebrated by some of the finest poets in our language, especially those of England, Scotland and Wales, and we should be very careful in this Bill not to listen to panic outbursts of local authorities, perhaps with guilty consciences, who think that this Bill is going to be unfairly used against them. It is quite true, as has been said, that in all parts of the House there is general sympathy with the angler's point of view, and this Bill is long overdue. I think the general opinion of the angling world with regard to the pollution question is that it does not go far enough, but if that all-powerful body, the Federation of British Industries, has been satisfied, then I hope nobody is going to be agitated into whittling down this Clause by any panic-stricken local authority.
There is one other matter to which I must refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) introduced a very controversial question, that of Sunday fishing. On paper, a very good case, of course, can be made out for Sunday angling. If you permit golf on Sunday, why not fishing?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is permitted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is prohibited by a great many local authorities. This is not really dealt with
in the Bill, but I think it is quite in order on Second Reading. The Bill does not deal with Sunday fishing by rod and line. I am not dealing with the question of close-time for nets. If you are to prevent fishing, why should you not prohibit shooting on Sunday? In Ireland people do shoot on Sundays. They pursue game. In Scotland, I believe, never; in England, I believe, occasionally. In England, I believe, the practice of Sunday shooting by syndicates in the large cities is growing. I think it a most objectionable practice, and I would much rather see public opinion absolutely prohibit shooting on Sundays

Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that shooting is prohibited on Sunday? No one can fire a gun on Sunday. It is an offence in England.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That may be a fact, but the right hon. Baronet may not know that a good deal of shooting does go on by syndicates of shooting men in this country on Sundays. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know actual cases. I hope it has been stopped, but there were cases fairly recently.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is illegal.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Baronet is a magistrate, and I take his word that the law is not infringed anywhere about his part, but in other parts of the country it does go on. At any rate, if you are not to permit Sunday fishing, can you in logic permit Sunday shooting? And if you permit shooting, you must allow horse-racing and so on on Sunday, and one of our most cherished possessions, the British Sunday, would be still further whittled away. I must say that this movement for brightening up the English Sunday will meet, at any rate, with my strong opposition. I do not want our Sunday to be spent as it is in Spain, Italy and other countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Russia."] Or in Russia, where they have race meetings on Sunday. This question of fishing on Sunday is most controversial. It may sound very democratic to say that a working man can only get Sunday on which to fish, but I do not believe the majority of anglers are pressing for it at all. They have many other days—the holidays and Saturday. I have great sympathy with the poor angler
who cannot get away on the ordinary day, but it opens a very wide door, and we have to be very careful in these days about cutting away our distinctive British traits of character. This Bill is long overdue. It ought to have gone through before, and I had something to do with holding it up in the last Parliament, because of the very grave objection which an important section of the community took to it. But here it is, and I hope any alterations in this Bill will be still further in the direction of strengthening it from the point of view of that very admirable and worthy citizen, the rod-and-line angler. I think this Bill helps him, and I hope it may be still further made to help him.

Major MOLLOY: The question of the evils of using one hook for each bait or lure has been fully dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The other question is this. Is any provision being made in this Bill for dealing with the pollution of rivers by tars used by road authorities in dealing with road services? I hope this matter will be looked into, and that it will be possible to penalise any local authority which uses tar in any way that interferes with fishing in a district.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to call attention to Clause 62. In doing so, I should like to associate myself with the remarks which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. E. Evans), who referred to the case of the River Teifi fishermen which has been brought to my own notice also. I think I may say with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill passed over somewhat lightly the implications of this Clause, and I feel sure that, having heard the case put on behalf of these people by others as well as myself, he will be perfectly prepared to consider some ways and means of providing for their opposition to this Clause. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Cardigan was unduly modest in his historical reference to the antiquity of this trade. As a matter of fact, I think it is true to say that the fishing industry on the River Teifi was mentioned in very ancient writings—in that of Decimus Magnus, who lived in the years 300 to 380: and, furthermore, the very distinguished Gerald the
Welshman mentioned this very industry in the year 1138.
Therefore, I think it is fair for us to assume that an industry such as this, with such great antiquity, is obviously one which should appeal, at least, to Members on the opposite side of the House. May I also point out that, in the year 1314, the Earl of Pembroke petitioned Edward II to be allowed to reconstruct a salmon weir at Cilgerran, and the King was advised to permit this, hut, as the fishing on this spot would lessen the value of the King's fishing at Cenarth, he had to pay a fine to the King. This shows that fishing took place in this area at an early time. Records show that the fishermen paid rent to the King for fishing, and this continued right up to the time of James I. That shows very conclusively that the men, who feel they are injured by this particular Clause, have a very genuine case when they say they ought to secure complete exemption from the operation of this Clause. In an old topographical history there is a reference made to this particular industry in thiswise:
 The inhabitants derive a considerable profit from the drying of salmon, of which great quantities are taken in the river. There was formerly a weir "—
at a certain place, with the name of which I shall not trouble the House—
 but it was found obnoxious by the people of the surrounding districts as it prevented the salmon from ascending the river…In the widespread Rebecca Riots of 1843 the weir was demolished by a determined party of 400 men provided with crowbars and pickaxes, and now numbers of fine salmon ascend the river…
That brings us to 1861 and to 1865, the dates of the first Fishery Acts, and it is from that point, when Parliament began, unfortunately, to interfere, that the trouble began. The fishermen refused to pay the licence duty of 5s. imposed upon them. It is true they were persuaded ultimately into paying for the licences, but they did so only under protest. It is also true that from time to time these people, out of a spirit of camaraderie, did agree to certain other restrictions, such as the extension of their annual close time and the extended weekly close time, to give up net fishing and to assent to a reduction in the size of the mesh. But these men hold—and very strongly—that they must reserve the right which has been theirs, as they hold, from time immemorial.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to an incident which illustrates the, strong opposition which the men of this district put up against this Clause. I have before me a quotation from an interview which a local newspaper correspondent had with one of the oldest of these fishermen. The latter was asked to express his opinion, not of this Clause, but of a similar Clause which appeared in the Bill of last year. This was his opinion:
 Just 50 years ago they sent a posse of water bailiff's here to keep us off the river which our forefathers had fished in since the dawn of history. We had a fine brass band hero then, and the fishermen just surrounded the officers and marched them out of the district headed by the band. Only a few yeas ago the local riparian owners tried to buy us out, but we were not sellers, although sonic of us were offered £100 if we agreed to part with our rights.
I appeal to the House to note this particular passage:
 We told them that birthrights were not for sale, that the right to net salmon in the Towy had been handed down to us by our ancestors, and we must pass it on intact to the next generation.
What these people feel is that the controversy, which is an old one, is a controversy between those people who fish for pleasure and those who fish for a living. It appears that on the higher reaches of this river hotels are being built from time to time, and these hotels are being visited by gentlemen in the week-ends in search of pleasure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put the point! "] I am putting the point. These gentlemen in search of pleasure have for a long time sought, sometimes by persuasion and sometimes in other ways, by attempts to buy these fishermen out, and so on, to get the ancient interests of these men removed, and thereby secure for themselves a much more unlimited degree of fishing opportunities. These men for whom I am speaking object to this Clause, and, as they think, rightly. It is perfectly true that the Memorandum circulated with this Bill says that the Clause is permissive, it is not obligatory on the Fishery Board to put it into effect. But from the, point of these coracle men it should be said they have only been able to secure something like three representatives upon the Fishery Board, and whenever any case is put forward on their behalf, they have invariably been
voted down by superior numbers. Consequently it is hopeless to ask them to accept a relegation of their case to a Fishery Board upon which they are inadequately represented. They therefore feel that their livelihood is endangered by this Clause. There is very grave reason to doubt as to whether they would have any chance whatever if this Clause were put into operation. As a matter of fact, a very highly-placed gentleman in the neighbourhood where these people live committed himself to a statement such as this:
I shall not be satisfied until every coracle is swept from the Towy.
Last September, anticipating that the present Bill would soon become law, he said:
Then we shall be all right.
Fishing may be a very excellent form of sport. I do not for a moment doubt it, though I am not familiar with it; but it is not, sportsmanship, in the pursuit of mere pleasure, to deprive men of their livelihood in this way who have a right from time immemorial. It is the very antithesis of sportsmanship. Therefore, with the greatest possible emphasis, I desire to support my hon. and gallant Friend so that these men of the Teifi and Towy rivers shall have more adequate protection provided for them than is involved in this Clause of the Bill.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: In rising to address the House for the first time, may I say I do not wish to oppose the Bill. In addressing the House I do not pose as a fisherman or a sportsman, or anything of the sort, but my aim is this: to speak from a purely utilitarian point, of view and to show, as perhaps typical, how this Bill affects my constituency. That effect is embodied in Clause 55, which deals with the pollution of waters of estuaries. The way in which we get rid of our sewage is by means of pumping into the estuary of the Humber, and in the event of Clause 55 going through unamended, it will put the local authorities to the expenditure of an enormous amount of money in order to get rid of that sewage. The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to the case of his constituency in which be, said the sewage might have to be carried three miles. I should like him and this House to bear well in mind that in my constituency, in order to get rid of the sewage, if the Bill passed in its
present state, we would have to carry it not three miles but 10 miles right out into the North Sea. This, I think hon. Members will agree, will be a very very grievous charge. In the event of it being possible to make an Amendment in Committee to this very trenchant Clause 55, I shall have very great satisfaction in supporting the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The House has listened with pleasure to the speech just delivered by the hon Member for Grimsby (Mr. Sutcliffe). At the same time, I do not know that I find myself in full agreement with him as regards the question of pollution in the estuaries. We know it is a difficult subject, but no hon. Member, I am sure, desires to see conditions upon towns imposed which means that they would have to carry sewage a long way. Undoubtedly, however, I think it would be tragic if this Bill does not materialise in some real form. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) far in the direction he has gone except to say that I understand that certain people in South Wales are greater adepts at poaching, and by that I mean the taking of fish by illegal methods, than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER "What do you know about South Wales? "] But the trouble is insufficient fish to ascend the higher waters of the river in order to spawn, and if present methods are pursued and, unless protection is afforded, salmon trout will, before long, be non-existent. I sympathise with the desire to protect the coracle fishermen, but I should like to draw attention to what has been proved in other parts of the country to have happened following the removal of obstructions in the waters. It has meant that there has been an increase in the number of fish for fishing and also of the landing of fish to be put. on the market as food. Both have increased enormously.
I would not have intervened in this debate if I had not had some knowledge of the subject, and had not desired to put the House in possession of some of the facts. In reference to a certain river which I know it was netted in the ordinary way without any extraordinary methods, or poaching, but netted in the ordinary legal manner for some 10 miles from the estuary. The rights were bought out and
arrangements made in various ways so that at the present moment there is only a mile and a half of river netted. The result has been perfectly extraordinary. Not only is the result of the fishing better now than in the 10 miles, but the rod fishing in that river has gone up ten-fold as a result of the removal of the nets. Under this Act, if the rights of the coracle fishermen are reserved, but measures such as I have indicated are taken it is, I think, quite likely that the catches will be bigger than they are at the present time, and the fishing will be better and more extensive. May I ask the Minister for Agriculture a question in connection with Clause 56 which deals with power to mortgage revenue or property? I presume it will be possible for Fishery Boards to raise the money required by mortgage for the purpose of buying up the vested interests in the shape of such cases in South Wales as have been referred to to give compensation to those who have had rights from time immemorial for not taking fish, and also for the removal of obstructions like clams and so on. Then I think there will be an enormous increase in the fish ascending the river for the purpose of spawning, and the result will be, it seems to me, generally beneficial.

Dr. CHAPPLE: This Bill does not apply to Scotland, but anything that applies to any part of the Solway Firth cannot he ignored by Scotland. The methods and the law applying to the two shores of the Solway Firth are quite different. In the first place, salmon fishings are privately owned in Scotland, and are publicly owned in England. That is an essential difference between the north shore of the Solway Firth and the south shore. The other difference is that fixed engines for the capture of salmon are legal on the north shore of the Solway Firth and illegal on the south shore. This difference is reminiscent. of the days when the English tried to get a footing in Scotland, with what success we know. The Scottish Legislature were not anxious to preserve the fishing for the English who were occasionally in possession of the Solway Firth, and so did not allow this prohibition of fixed engines for the capture of salmon to apply to the Solway Firth; and that position has obtained ever since, if some remedy be not found for this discrepancy, the Bill will not be acceptable to those who have interests in
the north shore of the Solway Firth. Those in the constituency which I have the honour to represent who have taken an interest in this matter are opposed to a Solway Board that does not carry out the recommendations of -the Stafford Howard Report. The Stafford Howard Commission, which was set up in 1896, suggested that the conditions with regard to the Solway Firth should be made uniform, and they strongly recommended that a Solway- Board dealing with the fisheries in the Solway Firth, simild, first of all,
 be empowered and required to buy up—subject, of course, to existing leases—all the private rights of salmon fishing within the district, the price to be fixed by agreement, or, failing agreement, by arbitration, and to be based upon the average net profits received by the respective proprietors in the five years preceding, say, the 1st of January, 1896.
The Report was made in 1896, and that accounts for the date mentioned. There were several other recommendations, of which an important one, in addition to the one I have just recited, was that the Board should
 be empowered with the sanction of the Board of Trade to borrow money from the Public Loan Commissioners or others for carrying out purpose (a) supra"—
that is the one to which I have just referred—
 on the security of the licence duties and the rents or income of the stake-nets.
Unless some provision is made for uniformity of method and uniformity of rights on both the north shore and the south shore, difficulties will continually arise, and the Bill, as it stands, will not he acceptable to those who have interests on the north shore. I have strongly appealed to the Government to reconsider Clause 84, which is the only one in which reference is made to the Solway Firth, with regard to mesh nets and the making of some provision for dealing with the whole of the Solway Firth by a Board having jurisdiction over both shores, and for buying out the rights on the north shore and carrying out such other recommendations of the Stafford Howard "Report as will make the whole of the fisheries uniform on both sides. If that is done, I am sure that no opposition will come, from any Scottish Member with regard to this Bill. In fact, I have heard it highly approved by people interested in fishing in Scotland, and some have wished
that the Bill, in many of its provisions at any rate, should be made to apply to Scotland. I think that if it passes without including Scotland, the time will soon come when a demand will be made for a somewhat similar Measure applying to Scotland.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: With regard to the Solway Firth, I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) has minimised the disadvantages under which the English shore rests. The Clause as it stands is, I believe, an agreed Clause produced in another place after an Amendment moved by Lord Ullswater. It was pointed out in the other place that, whereas on the Scottish shore they are allowed to have stake-nets and fixed engines, these are not allowed at all on the English shore, and the damage that has been done to the Solway Firth, as shown by the decrease in out-turn, is due to the fixed stake-nets on the Scottish shore.
We are rather liable to look upon this Bill as a sportsman's Bill, and it is a matter for congratulation to all sportsmen that a Bill like this is going to be passed into law but, at the same time, it would not be right that this House should lose sight of the very large fishing industry which maintains a considerable number of fishermen round the coasts and in the estuaries. T believe that in England we actually catch more salmon than are caught in Norway, and I have seen an estimate of 6,000 tons as the catch of salmon in the nets round our coasts. That is no mean industry, and anything that tends to improve an industry of that sort is of value to the country, and to be welcomed. It is for this reason that I, personally, most welcome this Bill.
It has been proved over and over again that the interests of the net-fisher and the interests of the angler are one and the same—that by improving the angling you at the same time, as has already been pointed out, improve the net-fishing. The net-fishers, however, feel that, after all, this is their livelihood while it is our sport, and it is for this reason, I have no doubt, that from sundry quarters objections have been raised to the Bill. I would ask the Minister to consider whether those objections could not be met by an increase in the proportion of members on the fishery hoards who represent the net-fishers.
According to the Bill as at present drafted, the probabilities are that the fishery boards will consist, as to one-third, of members nominated by county or borough councils, as to one-third of anglers, and as to one-third of representatives of the net-fishermen; but the nominated members will doubtless be nominated on account of their interest in fishing, so that the chances are that the fishery boards will consist of a majority of anglers and a minority of net-fishermen who live by their fishing. I would suggest that it might be advisable that this difficulty should be met by increasing the proportion of net-fishermen on the fishery boards, where necessary, above one-third.
The Erskine Amendment to Clause 8 is an Amendment which I think we should accept with very great regret. It was agreed to on the ground of the pressure put upon the Government by the Federation of British Industries. The Federation of British Industries had received a shock from the decision in the case of Halley against the Silverspring Bleaching and Dyeing Company, Mr. Justice Eve, in his judgment in that case, having laid it down as the law that there could be no prescriptive right to pollute a river. When that principle was established by that decision, the Federation of British Industries at once brought pressure to bear, and the result was that we have Clause 8 as it now stands. I do not know whether it is inevitable that that Clause should go through as it is now drafted, but I am quite sure that, in the interests both of net-fishing and of angling, a strengthening of the Clause is desirable. Subsection (1, a) provides that
 A person shall not be so liable to any penalty for any act done in the exercise of any right to which he is by law entitled "—
that, of course, is quite right, but it goes on
 or in continuation of any method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act; 
that is to say, he gets a prescriptive right of pollution. Of course, that is denied, and it is stated that it is not a prescriptive right of pollution, but the words of the Bill seem to be quite clear, and it would be exceedingly difficult, in any case in which pollution already exists, to obtain a conviction under this Bill.
There have been a great many speeches on the Bill, and I think it has been generally welcomed in all quarters of the House, but we must not forget that fishing is to many men a livelihood and that the Bill should be framed in the first instance to their advantage. For that reason, I trust that the Minister will be able to accept a proposal that the number of net-fishermen on fishery hoards should be increased.

Colonel H. GUEST: I welcome a Bill of this nature, co-ordinating so many of the laws relating to fishing and the fishing industry, but I agree with the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Sutcliffe) with regard to Clause 55, which, I think, may cause great hardship, if inadvisably interpreted, to towns and cities with large populations, such as that which I have the honour to represent. There is a possibility of great hardship being inflicted on the city of Bristol in regard to the disposal of its sewage, and I think there should be some limiting Clause whereby the case of a big city, with a large population, which requires to dispose of its sewage in a cheap and efficient manner, should be dealt with separately and specially in this Bill. I am sure that in Committee that will be investigated.

6.0 P. M.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I desire to say a few words on this Bill, with particular reference to the Clause which was alluded to a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson). What, in brief, is the history of this Bill l It can be told in a very few words. It is a consolidation Bill, as we are led to understand, into which it was proposed to put a little new matter relating to pollution, netting, regulating, and so on, and a small Committee was set up to assist the Ministry in drafting the Bill. On that Committee were two gentlemen who represented the Wye, and representatives of an angling society in the Midlands, and of on small pollution prevention society in Nottingham, and they assisted the Ministry in drafting the Bill. It has been said that the particular Amendment of Clause 8, which is commonly known as the Erskine Amendment, was put in at the instance of the Federation of British Industries, but, whether that be so or not, I desire to press upon the right hon. Gentleman to-day that he should not allow to stand in the Bill the last few lines of Sub-
section (1, a) of Clause 8, because I suggest to the Government that it is not right, in what is pre-eminently a consolidation Bill, to introduce large changes in the existing law of this country. Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 8, if carried, would to all intents and purposes legalise for all time all existing pollution. That would be the effect of the Clause as it stands. [HON. MEMBERS: "No "] Well, that is the Minister's view, though it is not the view held by other gentlemen who have given the subject the consideration it deserves. However desirable it may be to consolidate the law on any particular subject, if the consolidating Bill proposes at the same time to alter the law in such a way as to render the commission of some offence easier than it was before, that should not be supported by those who consider that offence, as some of us consider it, one of vital importance.
This Clause, to which some of us take exception, is opposed not alone in the interest of sport It is not only sport that is affected by what in some respects is a very interesting Bill. Let us assume an extreme case in which pollution takes effect to such an extent that every salmon or trout in a particular river ceases to exist. What then happens to the livelihood of the men engaged in catching salmon in the estuaries and along the coast? If the salmon when they run up the river to spawn are all killed before they get there owing to pollution, what happens to the salmon supply and to the livelihood of the men engaged in fishing along the coast? The Government are proposing by this legislation, and particularly by Clause 8 (1, a), in effect to legalise all existing pollutions of waters containing fish so far as such pollutions would be poisonous to these fish or to their spawn. Under the Bill as it stands with the Erskine Amendment in it the polluter would merely have to prove that he had used the best practical means within a reasonable cost to prevent such matter doing injury to the fish. It has been found under the old laws that this proof could all too easily be provided. It is merely a matter of expert witnesses, and that being so it is in effect legalising for all time existing pollutions which have taken place. A judgment was given by Mr. Justice Lawrence on 23rd March in an action by Lord. Granby, eldest son
of the Duke of Rutland, for an injunction to restrain the Bakewell Urban District Council from discharging or permitting to be discharged from the Bake-well Gas Works into the River Wye any gas, tar, or other noxious or injurious liquid. The plaintiff claimed £500 damages for injury done. His Lordship found for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £150—£100 for the occasion in May and £50 for the occasion in October. If this Bill had been on the Statute Book with the objectionable Subsection to which I have alluded the judgment might have been a different one altogether.

Sir R. SANDERS: Was that not an action for damages by a private plaintiff?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Yes.

Sir R. SANDERS: That is in no way affected by the Bill. The law with regard to the remedy of a private person for damage caused by pollution is absolutely unaffected by the Bill. It only deals with an action brought by a Fishery Board.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Where does the poor wretched person then come in whose water is polluted? Is he unable to bring an action at all?

Sir R. SANDERS: The existing common law right remains. The Bill makes no difference whatever in his common law right. He has just the same right to bring an action for damages. All the Bill does is to enable a Fishery Board to bring a criminal prosecution.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That may be very well so far as it goes, but the water that is polluted extends some distance, and although the Fishery Board may bring an action, what happens if the water is being taken over by the Fishery Board and certain rights are reserved by the proprietor? Where does the proprietor come in then?

Sir R. SANDERS: He has his common law rights.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: His water has been taken over by the Board.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Fishery Board does not own the water. It has no riparian rights.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It is a legal point on which I should like the opinion I of the Law Officers whether or not in that
case an action would lie at the instance of the Fishery Board or the proprietor. It depends entirely on the terms of the lease under which the fishery is taken over. Let us pass from that and come to the Fishery Board. Let us assume that the Fishery Board brings an action. If the law had been altered and the action had been brought not by Lord Granby but by a Fishery Board, the judgment would have been a very different one. A verdict would not have been obtained and even the Fishery Board would not have obtained its just dues. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman riding off on the plea that the proprietor would not have been heard. I am not sure whether that is the case. I most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter further serious consideration. If passed as it now stands the Bill will make legal all pollution that now exists and it will be a very simple thing in future under this Erskine Amendment for the pollutor to prove that he has used the best practical means within a reasonable cost to prevent such matter from doing an injury to fish or to the spawning ground. That will be a simple thing for expert witnesses to prove to the satisfaction of the Court. If the Bill is allowed to remain as it stands the Government will be doing an injurious thing not only to the sporting interests of the country, but to the men who make their livelihood round our estuaries and our coasts and generally to those of our population who are interested in maintaining at its highest the food supply of the country.

Sir JAMES BRUTON: I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 55 and to ask him how it will affect the City of Gloucester. In 1911 the Local Government Board held an inquiry at Gloucester in consequence of which the sewer outfall was removed from above to below the Weir. It was taken under the Severn across a large meadow and it cost the ratepayers a very considerable expense. Since the alteration has been made no complaints have been made and so far as we know—and we have made every inquiry—no injury has been done to the fishery industry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that no hardship will be inflicted on the ratepayers by having a large additional expense put upon them. The work was
done in accordance with the instructions of the Local Government Board and they hope they may be relieved from any further expenditure in the matter.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said this was a consolidating Bill which ought not to include Amendments of the law. The Title however, is a consolidating and amending Bill, and it is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to put in Clauses which amend the law. I think, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised rather an important point. His contention is that where a person has been in the habit of polluting a stream he will be allowed to continue to pollute it under this Bill provided he shows he has used the best practical means within a reasonable cost to prevent such matter from doing injury to fish. Of course anyone will he able without much difficulty to prove that he has used such practical means within a reasonable cost—I do not know what a reasonable cost will be held to be—as will prevent the matter damaging the fish and consequently nothing can be done against him. My right hon. Friend says that would not apply to a private person because the Bill deals only with Fishery Boards. Is that so? It is rather an important point.

Sir R. SANDERS: It would not affect the common law right of a private person bringing an action for damages. This Bill only affects criminal prosecutions. A private person might bring an action in a Civil Court for damages, and this Bill does not affect that in any way whatever.

Mr. PETO: Arising out of that statement, that a private person may bring an action, surely that would also cover any corporate body or anyone who w as entitled to bring an action at common law. If a Fishery Board did happen to own a fishery, which it does not now, it would have the same right which exists now under the common law.

Sir F, BANBURY: I am not a lawyer, and it seems to me that this is a matter which requires some elucidation. The Minister of Agriculture says that this Bill only applies to criminal matters. That may be so, but it does not appear in the Bill. The Bill says that "no person" shall do certain things. That is in Clause 1. There is nothing what
ever about the Fishery Board. I find nothing there about criminal acts or Fishery Boards. Clause 8 says
 No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, etc.
Then there is the proviso that such person shall not be liable to any penalty if he takes reasonable precautions. This raises a very important point, because this Bill is a consolidating Bill, and it will override the existing Acts. This is the Bill upon which cases will be founded, and it says that if a person causes or permits certain poisons injurious to fish to go into a stream he may do so provided that he has done certain things, that is, provided that he has taken precautions. Where is the question of a criminal act there?

Sir R. SANDERS: The criminal act is described in Sub-section (1) of Clause 8, in the words,
 he shall he guilty of an offence against this Act,

Sir F. BANBURY: We have the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) here. It is a pity they are not sitting on the Government Bench, so that we might know where we stand. If this Bill becomes law, it will mean that a person will not be guilty of an offence, against this Act if he takes reasonable precautions. How on earth can you bring an action for damages, provided the person against whom you are bringing the action says that under this Bill he is allowed to do certain things. I hope I am wrong.

Sir R. SANDERS: You are.

Sir F. BANBURY: I often am, but I think we ought to have some legal explanation of this very important point. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible in this Clause, or in some other Clause, to put in something dealing with the escape of tar from roads into rivers. There is no doubt that a great deal of that kind of pollution goes on, and, so far as I can see, there is nothing in this Clause which would deal with it.

Mr. HARBORD: My objection is to Clause 55, and other Clauses giving powers to the Fishery Boards. These powers may gravely affect the town which
I have the honour to represent. If these proposals are adopted in their fullness, I should view with very grave alarm the giving of these powers, because it seems to me that there ought to be some higher tribunal that could be appealed to by public authorities whose interests may be gravely imperilled, and who may be put to great expense. A new drainage scheme for my town would cost anything from £300,000 to £500,000. Proposals of that sort would very prejudicially affect the interests of the ratepayers of my town. A small and rather unimportant body might over-ride a larger body, and put them to very heavy expense. I want to assist in expediting the passage of this Measure, but in the interests of those who sent me here I want to get some governing Clause that will protect them.

Mr. C. H. WILSON: Whilst the rivers of Sheffield and South Yorkshire are not now fishable, there are a very large number of persons who find a great deal of week-end recreation in fishing in Lincolnshire, and I hope that when this Bill gets into Committee we shall not overlook the position of these anglers. I am not aware of the membership of the clubs in South Yorkshire, but they comprise a very large membership. So far as Sheffield is concerned, there are 20,000 club anglers, many of whom take the cheap tickets which the railway companies offer at, the week-ends, and who spend their weekends in Lincolnshire fishing. Many of them also spend their holidays down there, and there are numerous fishing matches promoted. Anything in this Bill which would in any way tend to discourage the healthful recreation which these people enjoy is to be deprecated. Not only does this matter affect the 20,000 club anglers in Sheffield, but I would point out that they are a source of very considerable revenue to the people in Lincolnshire where they go for the purpose of spending their holidays. I hope that it will be borne in mind that these men are almost entirely working men, and that they incur considerable expense in connection with their tickets. I hope that anything that will tend to keep them from going into the country for healthful recreation will be avoided.

Sir R. SANDERS: I should like to say a few words in regard to the points raised by several hon. Members in connection with Clause 55. If hon. Members will
look at that Clause they will see that paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) provides that for the purpose of instituting proceedings a Fishery Board shall be subject to the same restrictions as a sanitary authority. The restrictions on a sanitary authority are laid down in the Pollution of Rivers Act of 1876. It is there provided that:
… proceedings shall not be taken against any person under this part of this Act save by a sanitary authority, nor shall any such proceedings be taken without the consent of the Local Government Board…. The said Board in giving or withholding their consent shall have regard to the industrial interests involved in the case and to the circumstances and requirements of the locality.
 The said Board shall not give their consent to proceedings by the sanitary authority of any district which is the seat of any manufacturing industry, unless they are satisfied, after due inquiry, that means for rendering harmless the poisonous, noxious, or polluting liquids proceeding from the processes of such manufactures are reasonably practicable and available under all the circumstances of the case, and that no material injury will be inflicted by such proceedings on the interests of such industry.
That is a pretty strong precaution, and I do not think that there is any fear that the Ministry of Health, which has succeeded the Local Government Board, will be likely to authorise a prosecution by a Fishery Board unless there is some very extreme case. I do not think that Newcastle, Grimsby, Gloucester or other towns mentioned need be afraid of anything of the sort happening. The only other important point, except Committee points, was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in regard to Clause 8. If the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the words which I have read from the Pollution of Rivers Act of 1876, he will see that there is very little difference between Clause 8 and the Act of 1876. In regard to prosecution, this Bill makes very little difference in the law. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. and gallant Friend confuse prosecutions under the old law and under this Bill, with a civil action for damages. They are two entirely distinct things. If a private individual or a corporation or a company is injured by pollution, they have two courses open to them. One course is to
proceed under the criminal law. That can be done under this Bill, but in order to do that, unless it is clone by a fishery board, the private individual would have to get the consent of the Minister of Health before he could proceed with the prosecution.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that under the old law a common informer can bring a prosecution?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, with the consent of the Minister, but under this Bill it has to be with the consent of the Minister. That is to a small extent affected by the provisions of this Bill, because they are altogether the same as under the Act of 1876, but the common law right is not affected in the least, and any private person whose fish are poisoned has just the same right to bring an action for damages or for an injunction as if his dog were poisoned, and his right is not affected by this Bill. In reference to the point raised as to Sunday fishing, Sunday fishing is allowed at the present time, and I have heard of no instance in which a fishing authority has stopped it. I believe that the only thing to stop Sunday fishing is that there is a certain amount of public opinion against it, but it is not usual. As to the Solway fisheries, of which we have heard the history, I cannot add anything to what C said before. I think that these fishermen are amply protected under the provisions of this Bill. I cannot conceive, that they could have any stronger protection, short of allowing everyone to do exactly as he likes, than that which the Bill affords him.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: What about Clause 61 as to licences?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is purely consolidation, and makes no difference in the law as regards licensing. The licensing system is 87 years old.

Mr. MACPHERSON: What about Scotland?

Sir R. SANDERS: It does not apply to Scotland. With regard to retail fishmongers, the Clause in the Bill of last Session has been withdrawn. After thin explanation perhaps the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman has minimised the change which is made by Sub-section (1), paragraph (a)
of Clause 8. There was a certain amount of truth in his contention that this change in no way affects existing common law rights of proprietors who desire to use their civil remedy against a person guilty of polluting waters in which they are interested, but it was precisely because of the weakness of the civil remedy open to a proprietor to prevent pollution that the Rivers Pollution Act was passed. The remedies available to proprietors were twofold. There was first an injunction which is an expensive thing and may not be very effective. Then if, in addition, a claim for damages were made it was necessary for the owner to establish that fish had in fact been killed. In the action to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) referred the Plaintiff was able to establish that fish were killed, and the Court awarded damages, but this is a remedy which is very rarely available. It may be that the passing of this Section will make no difference to the rights of proprietors, but it is a serious thing that the powers available to prevent pollution, under the Divers Pollution Act, will be limited under this Bill. Before 1876 the penal provisions were found to be quite inadequate. Now we are going back. We allow under this Bill a defence which was not available in 1876. The effect is that anybody who started polluting since 1876, and has not been challenged, either by a common informer or a Fishery Board, and who can establish that he has acted in continuance of a method in use prior to the passing of 'this Act, has a defence to a prosecution. To give this defence is seriously to weaken the law on this important subject. I think that the House should not readily assent to any weakening of the law in relation to this matter.
It has been asserted in debate that this particular Amendment has been introduced at the instance of the Federation of British Industries and that that body has expressed its benevolent intentions in regard to this Amendment, and that therefore we should let it go. I think that a statutory provision is much better than a benevolent intention, and that in no circumstances should the Reuse give its assent merely on an assurance of that kind to any weakening of the law enabling the rivers of this country to be further polluted. I am sorry that when a question of such complexity was under discussion no law officer was pre
sent. The House has been in the habit of obtaining the assistance of law officers. Even in the case of Scotland there is some lip service paid to the principle of having a law officer in this House, because for the remainder of this Session we are to have the advantage of the services of a, gentleman who is a member of the Faculty of Advocates, even though he may never have practised, but in England we have always had two practising barristers, and there are at present two practising barristers available to the Government, and in a complicated Measure of this kind, which is both a Consolidation Act and an Amending Act, it is essential that there should be, somebody to give a legal opinion when a point of this kind is raised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be a member of the Committee which will deal with the Committee' stage of this Bill, and that then this matter may be cleared up. The first duty of the Law Officers is to assist the Government and the House of Commons. Otherwise there is no point in having law officers Members of the House of Commons at all. With regard to local authorities I have some doubt as to whether the Government are not right in insisting on the provision in Clause 55. If it is true that some local authorities are at present polluting by means of sewage discharged into estuaries some effort should be made to see that they do not continue that practice in future, but the real question is this change, in the law which is effected by paragraph a of Sub-section (1) of Clause 8. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman will take it further into consideration and will see that the public interest in no way suffers by this Amendment.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a small Bill, but, I think, a useful one. From time immemorial it has been the practice in this country for the authorities responsible for law and order to require, when necessary, the assistance of civilians in helping them to carry out their duties in keeping order. That certainly goes back to a period before the Conquest. It has always been the idea in this country, and a very proper one, that it is the duty of every citizen to assist the authorities in preserving law and order. The first Act which was passed in reference to this was passed in the time of Charles II, I think, in 1672 or 1673. That Act authorised the appointment of special constables, and followed the same principle. But the Acts under which in modern times we have been living have been, first, the Special Constables Act of 1831, which was one of the series of Police Acts passed by Sir Robert Peel, about the same time as the Metropolitan Police were instituted, and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, which was subsequently superseded by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. Under that second Act the municipal corporations had power to employ special constables to assist their watch committees.
Under the Special Constables Act of 1831, it is only when a tumult, riot, or felony has taken place or may be reasonably apprehended that justices can swear in special constables. That was the position before the War. During the War the Special Constables Acts of 1914, in this country, and 1915, to alter it slightly for Scotland, were enacted and special constables could be appointed though no riot or disturbance was apprehended, and Regulations could be made under Orders in Council for conditions of service and control. Those Acts lasted until August of last year. I believe it was the intention to continue them under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but some technical difficulty was found, and I understand that the last Government intended to bring in this Bill. The effect of the Acts lapsing is that, although there are considerable bodies of special con
stables enrolled under the 1934 Act who are under those Regulations and under that control and can serve as special constables now, yet there is no longer any power to recruit for the force when existing members retire or die. It is to enable recruiting to take place and a nucleus force to be kept up that this Bill is introduced. Everyone must be aware of the excellent work that the special constables did during the War and after wards. There was a very fine force in London, under Sir Edward Ward, which did most useful work. We feel that it is most desirable that a nucleus force should be maintained so that men who know something about constabulary work can be used at short notice if required. [HON MEMBERS: "For strikes!"] depends on what the strikers did. It might be necessary to defend strikers from the indignation of the general public, in which case, no doubt, the special constables would be extremely useful.
I would like to call attention to two paragraphs in the Report of Lord Des-borough's Committee on the police. Many recommendations in that Report have already been adopted with good results. Paragraph 190 says:
 This report has so far dealt with the organisation of the police and their duties to the public. It remains to say something of the duties of the public to the police. It has already been pointed out that the maintenance of public order and the suppression of all forms of violence are matters in which every member of the community is deeply concerned. From the earliest times the citizen has been and still is required to take his part in the preservation of the peace and the suppression of disorder. We consider that if the obligation of the citizen to the community in this respect were more widely recognised, the duties of the police would be materially lightened, their relations with the law-abiding portions of the community would be improved, and the burden of the maintenance of the police would be lightened.
Paragraph 192 says:
 In cases of disturbance with which the police are unable to cope without, assistance, the only alternative to the employment of the military is to resort to the civil community. It is, therefore, most important that there should be a duly constituted body of civilians on whom the police and the public might depend in an emergency, the members of which, if called upon to serve as police auxiliaries, may feel that they are only discharging the duties incumbent under the common law on all citizens. During the War a large number of special constables have rendered very great service to the com
munity, and it is to be hoped that the example thus set might animate others with.a desire to do their share in the maintenance of law and order. We consider it a matter of great importance that there should be a proper organisation enabling the citizens to assist, the police in cases of emergency, and that this organisation should form an integral part of the police system.
That is a very strong recommendation, and one which we are trying to carry out in this Bill. The Memorandum of the Bill explains clearly what are the objects of the Bill. Clause 1 is to enable us to maintain, recruit, and fill up vacancies in existing forces. Clause 2 is to extend the regulations now applied to the special constables to the marine police, who have recently been appointed by the Admiralty. These marine police took the place and they perform the duties of the Metropolitan police, who previously did the work. Their principal duty is, in naval armament establishments, to act as watchmen and to control the entry to and exit from those establishments. Clause 3 applies this Bill to Scotland—not only the 1914 Act but the Scottish Act of 1915. Previously, under the Borough Police (Scotland) Act of 1892, no special constables could be enrolled except between the ages of 20 and That restriction was abolished under the Act of 1915, and it is proposed to continue the abolition of the restriction, because there are many mer. above the age of 50 useful for this purpose.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And under the age of 20?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think they would be under the age of 20, but that will be left to the local authority whose duty it is to recruit them. The main objects of this Bill are to maintain this nucleus force of men who have had instruction in their duties, and who would, therefore, be more useful than men enrolled under the 1831 Act by a magistrate as special constables in an emergency. The special constables in the force now have had a certain amount of instruction in their duties, and in many cases have certainly proved most efficient. The passing of the Bill will also mean that, instead of having to go through the form of waiting to be quite sure that there was a riot existing or apprehended, and then getting a magistrate to swear in special constables, there would be this force existing, ready to preserve order in places
where the police wanted assistance. I presume that every Member of the House wants order to be kept, if possible, and that he would prefer to have an experienced man trying to do it. There is another point which it is worth while taking into consideration, and that is that, failing special constables, the only alternative is calling in the military. I am sure that Members of this House would much rather see a force of special constables used in ordinary disturbances to support the police than have recourse to the military. So I commend this Bill to the House. It is a useful Bill; it will certainly conduce to the maintenance of law and order, and I think nobody need be afraid that it is likely to be misused.

Mr. HAYES: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I would preface my remarks by saying that I hope I shall have the indulgence and tolerance that are shown to all Members when they first address the House. There is, perhaps, no other subject that would entitle me to take up the time of the House so much as this Bill. I speak as one who has had some practical experience of constabulary work, and of special constabulary work, inasmuch as during the War I was concerned with the organisation of the special constabulary. No better opportunity than the present could be found for endorsing what the Home Secretary has said as to the splendid work done by the special constabulary during the War. We should be very mean if we did not appreciate the service, even the heroic service, rendered by many special constables during the air raids upon London and other cities. But there is another point of view. The special constabulary during the War was a form of alternative accommodation, to some extent. We must appreciate the fact that, although we recruited large numbers of men from all walks of life into the special constabulary, a large proportion of those men would not have found their way into the special constabulary unless under a system of conscription.
7.0 P.M.
This Bill is to perpetuate the Special Constables Act of 1914, which was placed upon the Statute Book solely for the purpose of dealing with contingencies that arose
out of the War. If it were a War measure, surely we have no desire to perpetuate those things that remind us of the terrible War through which we have gone. I know of no good reason why we should ask for legislation to go even further than that which was passed in the time of William IV, namely, the Special Constables Acts of 1831 and 1835. In those days, when there were bands of robbers passing up and down the country, and when the most lurid reports were presented to the House of Commons with regard to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the country, I am sure that the House was prepared to pass the most stringent legislation to deal with the situation such as may then have arisen. The Special Constables Acts of those days were apparently sufficient to deal with any reasonable set of circumstances that might arise, and which might call for the special protection of the citizens by the citizens. One must remember that in those days the Transportation Acts were passed. If at that time, when they could pass the Transportation Acts, the Special Constables Acts contained provisions to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of the period, surely, in 1923, we are not going to say that we need to go any further than they went in the days of William IV, in so far as protection from marauders and unlawful subjects is concerned.
I am told, by many people who are anxious to sec a regular special constabulary force initiated, that it would be well to have a second line of defence to our regular police force. I want to warn the House in regard to that, speaking with the experience of one who knows what it is to have had to handle constables who were thoroughly trained in the best equipped establishments that could be provided under the Metropolitan Police, and who, in their first year of office, even with all their training, often had not any real responsibility, as individuals, in times of stress, and when feeling was running high during industrial disputes. I do not say that from any disrespect to the younger constables. I have been a young constable myself, but I have no less an authority than the instructions issued from New Scotland Yard and by the Commissioner of Police, from time to time. It is strange to see that the orders made under the Special Constables
Act, 1914, were signed by a gentleman who, in recent times, has had good reason to regret that perhaps there are members of the Police Force who may have exceeded the duties, the powers, and even the privileges that might be accorded to them. I am referring to Sir Almeric Fitzroy, who signed an order under the Special Constables Act, 1914. Surely, with the experience he sustained, as a result of the action of trained police men, we are not going to ask the people of this country to place themselves in the hands of a thoroughly incompetent and untrained body of people whose political mentality is formulated in the best clubs of this land. With regard to our special constabulary, we shall do well not to place on a permanent basis something which is viewed with a sense of suspicion and mistrust, outside this House, by thousands and thousands of people who are very much concerned, when there is unrest, that no untoward action shall he taken by the authorities.
The Special Constables Act, 1914, was to have lasted during the War only. When the War came to an end, the Act would have died by its own volition, and would have ceased to exist. The War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, 1920, provided for the continuation of the Special Constables Act of 1914 for a further period of twelve months after the War had ended. Therefore, the Special Constables Act, 1914, after receiving a form of thyroid gland treatment, was enabled to exist until 31st August, 1922, when it died naturally, because there was no legislation that gave it any further life. Since that time we have had reports from His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, and from the Commissioner of Police at New Scotland Yard. We have been told, in reports of the Commissioner of Police, that the special constabulary is in a flourising condition. I cannot understand how an organisation, for which there has been no legal status since August, 1922, can be in a. flourishing condition. If this Bill now before the House is to be taken seriously—as I hope it will be taken very seriously by hon. Members on this side of the House —it is intended to amend an Act of Parliament which has actually ceased to exist and which, by its own action, is as dead as even the imperial occupants of tombs at Luxor. We do not want these Acts, which were War Measures, resusci
tated for the purpose of giving us something, in the days to come, under condition which we sincerely hope—I am satisfied that hon. Members on the other side of the House are entirely at one with us there, and that they want no more real war. If you do not want any more real war, do not let us create industrial war by establishing a permanent force which may ultimately become the Fascisti and the Ku Klux Klan of this country. I shall probably be told—I am sure the House will forgive me for relating one or two incidents—that the establishment of a special constabulary force on a permanent basis is not intended, in any shape or form, to break industrial disputes. I wish to refer to one incident in particular that will justify the suspicions with which we view this particular method of organisation. Not many years ago there was a threatened strike. Telegrams and telephone calls were going backwards and for wards, seeking for information as to the number of special constables who had some knowledge of motor-driven machinery. No matter what kind of machinery they were used to, whether it were motor launches, motor cycles, or motor cars, they were asked to report at their stations. They were asked to report, not in their special constabulary uniforms, but in their oldest possible clothing, as they would be sent to do duty at certain power stations in the event of a strike. [Hoer. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] The very fact that that has happened once is indicative that it might have happened many times, and might well happen in the clays to come.
There is another question, as to whether the country can afford the expenditure that would be involved in the maintenance of such a service. I believe, as one who, perhaps, might have been one of the orphans of the storm at the General Election, that the pledges made by the Government during that General Election were pledges of the very strictest economy that would be practicable. How far does economy take us with regard to the special constabulary? The Geddes Committee made a report recommending certain cuts in the regular police service. Arising out of that report, certain reductions or losses in emoluments have been sustained by the regular police service, in order to meet the demands for economy. In that report, however, there was an entire absence of any recommendation that the special constabulary
should conic under the economy hammer. As a matter of fact, there were, at the time of the last official report, something like 100,000 special constables in the provinces, and something like 17,000 in London. I realise that it is difficult for any Minister to be able to say just where the expenditure in regard to the maintenance of the special constables can be divided from that incurred in connection with the regular constabulary, for the simple reason that to maintain a special constabulary force it is necessary that members of the regular police should be attached to the special constabulary for general educational purposes, so far as police law and practice are concerned. We have it on the Government's own figures, in the last annual report, that the cost of the special constables in the provinces was £20,000, and, so far as London was concerned, the cost was £38,000. Hon. Members will notice, therefore, that for 100,000 special constables in the provinces the cost, in travelling expenses and general expenses, was 220,000; yet, for 17,000 special constables in London, the cost was £38,000. If the Government be very keen on economising, they will not continue to spend money on a special constabulary force that is not wanted by the public; for the existence of which there is no necessity; that is not required or wanted by the regular police; and which, I believe I am correct in saying, under the law as it is represented in this Bill, is not required even by the special constables themselves.
We have had at Scotland House, New Scotland Yard, a permanent establishment maintained for the purpose of keeping together the machinery of the special constabulary. The majority of the officers of the special constabulary are not drawn from the workshops. In the main, they are drawn from employers, and are gentlemen who generally develop a point of view extremely antagonistic to the labour movements in times of crisis.

Mr. J. JONES: That is what they are wanted for.

Mr. HAYES: I want to be as fair as I possibly can to the constabulary force in this respect, but I recognise the impossibility of an untrained body, of a politically biased body, such as the special constabulary would be, being
utilised by Watch Committees, Standing Joint Committees, chief constables, or superior officers of police in such a way that they would exert the same impartiality that we so very often find exhibited by the regular police in the industrial areas. As a matter of fact, there are areas in this country where a special constabulary force is not required and does not exist, and if these particular areas—important areas at that—can do without a special constabulary force, I do not see why they should be compelled to maintain an establishment which their experience has shown can be very well dispensed with, without fear of the consequences. Such places as Derby, Barnstaple, Portsmouth, Southampton, Southport, Monmouthshire County, Bradford, Beverley and Dewsbury—in the main, industrial areas—can do without special constables. The Home Secretary said it would be much better to have a trained force in times of emergency than to rely on an untrained body of men who might be called together to quell any threatened tumult, riot or other disturbance. Strange to say, despite the fact that the Des-borough Committee's report was quoted, the only evidence taken before the Desborough Committee which was referred to, was not the evidence of the men who really know just what the public feeling is, and that is the rank and file of the police. The only evidence referred to was that from one or two highly placed officers in the police service and from the Home Office representative. Let us see whether we can square the statements made by that representative in 1919, with the point of view which the Home Secretary, I am sure, quite sincerely expresses to-day. Let us compare the right hon. Gentleman's view that we ought to have a trained force, with the view expressed by the Home Office representative in 1919 when giving evidence before the Desborough Committee. The evidence given by an assistant secretary from the Home Office was that
In an emergency it will not be so much the trained policeman as the young, active and hefty man that you will want.
That was the official view of the Home Office in 1919—that we required in the special constabulary force men who are young, active and hefty. I myself am fairly "hefty," and I know the benefit
my "heftiness" would be to me if I were in a tight corner. But surely it is not that particular kind of "heftiness" which we require in our special constabulary. I understand that it is tact and discretion which we require in the second line of defence proposed in this Bill. Having heard what the Home Secretary tells us to-day regarding the type of men required, and comparing it with the evidence given before the Desborough Committee in 1919, it is as well to quote the point, of view of the professional policeman from New Scotland Yard. The following instruction has been issued in General Orders for the information of all ranks:
 The offences most likely to arise are disorderly conduct, threatening and insulting words or behaviour whereby breaches of the peace may be occasioned and damage, wilful or otherwise, such as may necessitate arrest. It is essential that great discretion should be exercised by police in intervening in a strike, and only men of experience should he posted on duty.
I ask in the light of that statement, does not the House consider it an extremely dangerous experiment to create a permanent establishment of untrained men who will be politically opposed to the people with whom they will be brought into conflict? After all, the power of the policeman does not lie in Acts of Parliament. They are just the means by which he exercises an authority based not upon force but upon the good-will, commonsense and understanding of the public—of the right thinking type of man. I know what happens in industrial districts. My mind goes back to Tonypandy and to the 1911 riots in Liverpool, and many hon. Members will remember that day in Liverpool when broken heads were sustained on both sides. I wish to repeat now what I said to the Desborough Committee. That was one of the best Committees ever set up to inquire into police conditions. While not agreeing with all their recommendations, the Service is grateful for the vast improvements that have resulted from the Committee's Report, but having said that surely I must not deny myself the right nor must the party for which I am speaking at the moment deny itself the right of criticising one or two of the findings of the Committee. I am sure what I say will be accepted by the members of that Committee in the right spirit, as friendly criticism based upon an experience which, I hope, will bring
wisdom to at least some of the things I hope to say in this Chamber in the days to come. I appeared before the Desborough Committee, not as a private person, but as a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, and those who have served in the rank and file of either the police force or the Army know that there is a certain amount of personal anxiety as to what may happen to one who dares to speak his mind. On that particular occasion I had no fear, because I saw in that Committee men who were prepared to try to get at the truth and, though serving as a sergeant of police at the time, I said that in times of industrial unrest it was a positive danger to import policemen from one area into another while feeling was running high. I know what will happen if we have a permanently organised special constabulary. If there is a dispute in, say, Liverpool, 17,000 special constables in London may be called on for duty in the London streets while London police are transferred to Liverpool, perhaps at a few hours' notice of a threatened strike, and the great display of force against those who may take part in the dispute will have this consequence —that when the dispute commences there is already in existence a feeling which makes for open conflict and for disastrous results all round.
I can appreciate the reason for one Clause of the Bill—the Clause which empowers the Government to employ marine police and to make them special constables. I appeal to the Home Secretary to be frank with the marine police. There are certain obligations which the marine police must observe if they are sworn in under this Special Constabulary Bill. It is clearly defined that a special constable has all the powers, privileges, and duties of a police: officer, but although various Acts of Parliament are referred to in the Bill, no reference is made to the Police Act of 1919. Under that particular Act any person who may be guilty of any act likely to cause disaffection within the Service is liable to a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment with hard labour. I wish the people who are going to be sworn in under this Bill, if the Government push it through, to appreciate the position in this respect. Special constables may be marine police, or they may be
trade unionists who happen to get into the force because their employer happens to be an officer in the special constabulary. If a trade unionist, as a special constable, is called upon under his oath to take a part in connection with an industrial dispute and, if he obeys his principle of trade unionism, that man is liable to two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, if he dares to say to his comrades that he thinks he is suffering under an injustice. These matters should be made clear. If there is any Bill necessary to regularise the procedure since August, 1922, let the House be honest with itself and pass a Bill to regularise any illegal position which may have arisen.
We should also remember that when you place large bodies of police at the disposal of Watch Committees or chief constables, you have to take into consideration the type of mind which the chief' constable or the Watch Committee may have in using the services of those so placed at their disposal. In this country we have something like 69 chief constables who have been either Army or Navy officers. I do not say they were not excellent Army or Navy officers, but that. does not make them excellent civil police officers. On the contrary, experience shows that where you have the military mind in the civil police service, you get results disastrous to the public, because the police service depends upon initiative and not upon the collective formations to which the military mind is accustomed. In our county councils no less than 38 out of 50 chief constables are military or naval officers. One can well imagine what would happen in the event of, let us say, a railway strike, in the great railway centres and even elsewhere, if military officers were in absolute power over the police service and if they were to find themselves suddenly with large numbers of special constables ready to do their duty according to their lights and according to their point of view. The officer in control might he one of those with a military mind. One such officer has been responsible for an effusion which I will read to the House. It is not an extraordinary effusion to conic from the military mind in the police service and it expresses a point of view often expressed and, unfortunately, gaining ground within the police service, unless we are prepared to stop it. This is the
statement of an officer who happens to be a Lieutenant-Colonel and it deals with a projected Intelligence Department:
 The Department will have powers to deal with naval, military, civil, commercial, industrial or social matters which in the judgment of those responsible have a tendency to undermine, adversely influence or menace the security, integrity and welfare of the State, and in all respects to act as a bureaucracy for matters coming within its purview.
If a chief constable can write in that way, a man who has within his keeping the cherished traditions of civil administration, I want the House to realise the danger of establishing a permanent untrained special constabulary, because you cannot make a policeman by a few lessons at a central school; you cannot make a policeman by three or four months' casual training. Policemen take years to make to become efficient and effective, and I make this appeal. It may be unfortunate that as a new Member it should fall to my lot to oppose a very amiable Member of the Government, but I am positive that if my last act outside this House happened to be in a constituency where I arrested, perhaps, the progress of the Government's policy in winning the seat, I feel sure that, Whatever may be the circumstances of my entry into the House, whether I have been a common or garden policeman or otherwise, the fact does remain that what I have said I have said most sincerely, believing that it is true and for the benefit of the people who are outside this House.
In conclusion, I feel that a Government or a nation compelled to resort to maintaining a force such as is demanded by this Bill for the purpose of keeping its people in subjection and quietness is bankrupt in notions of the real idea of true government. We are taught in the regular police service that the primary objects of an efficient police force are the prevention of crime and the arrest of offenders when crime is committed. To all those ends must the efforts of the police be directed It is for the public tranquillity. That does not belong altogether to the Government; it is in the instructions given to the regular police. The preservation of public tranquillity and the absence of crime will alone prove whether the efforts of the police and the objects for which they have been appointed have been attained,
and I think this Bill is a condemnation of the ability of this Government and previous Governments to grasp the fundamentals of a real police administration. I hope the Bill will be defeated, and that, if legislation be necessary to regularise the appointment of the Marine Police, we shall not have it in the form of a revival of an Act of Parliament which we all hoped was long ago dead. I thank the House for their indulgence.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the House will agree that the electors of the Edge Hill Division have rendered a service to this House in sending the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Hayes) to deliver a speech revealing such a knowledge upon the subject of this Bill. I would suggest that the electors of the Edge Hill Division have rendered a service also to the Home Secretary in sending the hon. Member here, for the Home Secretary, for the first time almost, has had the advantage of the experience and advice of a policeman. The Home Secretary, who is in control of the police, usually controls them on the advice of men with military rather than police experience. I cannot speak with that intimate knowledge which has enabled the hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division to speak so eloquently upon this subject, but I can speak as a member of a Standing Joint Committee for some years, and I second the rejection of this Bill because my experience on that Committee has taught me that the Home Office more and more is developing a policy which manifests distrust of my people. The great industrial masses of this country are not less patriotic and lovers of peace and order than even the Home Secretary or anyone who supports him on the other side of the House. What is the position? The Standing Joint Committees of this country, stage by stage since the Armistice, have been driven against. their will to take certain steps, every step of which has been a revelation and a manifestation of distrust of the people among whom they live.
Take the special constables. I do not know whether it was by design or that he merely overlooked it, but the Home Secretary did not say who maintains the special constables and who is going to be responsible for the finance. The Standing Joint Committees in a multitude
of ways are having their powers filched from them. Take a county like the one I represent. There are there at least a quarter of a million workers. I have been through I do not know how many industrial upheavals in my short time, and I venture to say that you not only did not need any special constables, but you could have taken the police away from the county, and there would not have been any trouble. The right hon. Gentleman's representatives of the force itself would tell him that. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman and this House what takes place directly there is any strike, stoppage, or lock-out. If they knew, we could not have this kind of legislation suggested. If they could have the point of view of the men and women in great industrial areas, instead of having the "Pall Mall Gazette," or the "Evening News," or something like that, which is out of touch altogether with the life of the people of this country, they would not have this kind of legislation suggested. The maintenance of goodwill and order in industrial areas is almost completely in the keeping of the industrial leaders of the men who are out on strike. Chief constables in various areas will come to the men. I have known them on the platforms in the union meetings. We have had our songs, and there has been jovial good feeling, and the police have scarcely been in evidence. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Well, but in case there is going to be any trouble, we had better have policemen than the military," but this amounts to the same thing. To say, "We will call out the special constables" is simply to ask for trouble.
This House must understand that either we have got to be trusted as Britishers, who are proud of our great achievements in the realm of peace and law and order, or we have got to be told immediately that we are not to be trusted if it be the case that the Mussolini method has got to be applied to us, this House can take it for granted that it will inevitably invite the same spirit on the other side. The great masses of the people of this country are very proud of the fact that they can run this country without any coercion, even under the gravest circumstances. They can keep the law and keep the peace
under the gravest circumstances. They have no use, as I have no use, for Mussolini or any other similar gentleman—I do not care what particular point of view he represents. He can be Bolshevik or anything you like, but we have no use for any who rest themselves upon force. We do not care whether they represent the Home Office or whether they are supposed to represent some sentiment of the working class; we have no use for them. The masses will not have them at all. We have had, time after time, great industrial upheavals with scarcely a semblance of anything like trouble, yet the Home Office, stage by stage, not only takes away from the people in power the powers they have had as members of Standing Joint Committees—because they have no powers now; they have all been filched by the Home Office—but actually, before there is any trouble at all, seeks to maintain perpetually the Special Constables Act., which is a further manifestation of that distrust. It is a continuation of the war spirit.
When the Second Reading of the Bill which eventually became the late Act took place, it was made quite clear that it was only a war Measure. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given the slightest reason for the operation of a Bill of this kind, and I wish the Government—I do not care what Government—would trust our people to be worthy of the traditions which have been handed down to them, and of the heritage which is theirs, which is one of being capable of self-control, either individually or in masses. That is about all I want to say in supporting the rejection of this Bill. I hope that not only from this side of the House but from the other side there are those who will put the case for trusting and having confidence in the British people, because it may be that there will he industrial troubles in the future, and, if so, what will these special constables avail? Take an area such as I represent. Take any of the mining areas, for instance. I know the last time there was a stoppage you had your parks full of gentlemen who worked in the city, some of them in offices, and other people, and they were going swaggering down to the parks and getting very well paid for it, although they were working in their own offices during the day. At that time
everything was going on all right in the North, where the, people were having walking and running matches; there were one or two pony races, and we held a sort of pitman's Derby. Soon after this the first thing I saw was great headlines about upheavals up and down the country, but it was not true at all.
If the men had wished to be troublesome all these special constables would not have made any difference. I think the country as a whole is going to lose by this great distrust of the great mass of the people. I ask the Government to get back to the old spirit under which the people used to be trusted without hesitation and without exception. There is only one reason one can give for this proposal, and it is that these people are going to be a kind of blackleg, or a sort of nucleus of the Fascisti. If that is going to be the case, then the British worker is the last person to stand an organisation of that kind, and they will not be backward in meeting it. We want the trust and confidence of the Home Office, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take this merely as a matter of supporting or opposing the Bill, but in the best interests of the country, and in the interests of law and order in the future, I trust they will have something to say about this Measure and oppose it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member who moved this Amendment upon his eloquent maiden speech. I know that he speaks with great authority on this subject, having been a member of the Metropolitan Police Force, and therefore he is qualified to speak upon this subject from the inner side. We must, however, agree that this fact justifies us in taking something off his very excellent speech. We know the old saying that, "There is nothing like leather," and I feel a pride in believing that there is nothing like lawyers for certain purposes. I should like the hon. Member who has just spoken to read the Debates of this House at the time when the Police Force was originally formed by Sir Robert Peel At that time were the people so anxious for a professional Police Force such as we have got at the present time? Are we all absolutely satisfied with the advantages of a professional Police Force? Do we not sometimes think there is something to be said for the original duty of every
Englishman and every citizen to assist in keeping peace and order in this country? We all know that that is not the case at the present time.
I know that on one Occasion at the Cambridge Session a man was prosecuted for failing to help the police; the professional police prosecuted the man, and the magistrate gave him a lecture about his cowardice and pointed out that it was the duty of every man to help the constabulary to suppress disorder and to assist in arresting a criminal when called upon to do so. A fortnight after this friend of mine was going to his home in. Streatham in the early hours of the morning after having been to the theatre, and he was met by a young policeman who said: "There are burglars in this house, and they are trying to get out, and I call upon you to come and help me to arrest them." My friend was very much upset, and, remembering the lecture he had received from the magistrate, he got into the house first and jumped on the burglar and left the constable to deal with a man whom he thought was a second burglar. My friend got the best of his man, but it was afterwards found that they had arrested, not the burglar, but the householder, who brought legal proceedings, and there was a great deal of trouble about it.
I know the present system has certain disadvantages, but it is the duty of every single citizen to support the police on every occasion when called upon to do so. Here we have a body of special constables who were brought into existence during the War. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said he did so in the name of economy, and for that reason he asks us to suppress this extravagant body, and in support of his argument he gave us sonic, very interesting statistics. The hon. Member told us that the special constables in London numbered 17,000, and they cost £38,000 per annum, while there are 100,000 in the country and they cost £20,000 per annum. I gather, that in London each special constable costs £2 a year and in the provinces they cost 4s. a year. That does not strike me as being a very extravagant remuneration for special constables, and I cannot help thinking that it is an exceedingly cheap form of expenditure. I should have thought that it was scandalously inadequate for the
remuneration of the people who did this good work in London, and I should certainly not say that it was wasteful or extravagant expenditure. The hon. Member also told us how much better the professional policeman was as compared with the amateur, and then, for some extraordinary reason, he gave us a case which he had read in the papers. Does he think that redounds very greatly to the advantage of a paid police force as compared with an amateur police force? Does he not know very well that even constables in the West End have been connected with scandals which would have been impossible in the case of a special constabulary. I am not at all sure that it is always correct to say that a professional policeman is always better than an amateur.
What is really at the bottom of all this Are we really anxious to put down rioting and violence wherever it exists? I think we are all anxious to do this; at any rate, we all hope that as people become more and more trustworthy they are more likely to prevent riots of any kind. Nevertheless there are times when disturbances may occur, not necessarily in connection with strikes, but from other causes, and serious trouble may arise at any particular moment. Under such circumstances, here you have a force admittedly anxious to do its duty; a duty which every citizen is bound to do, and this is a force which has gained a certain amount of experience in regard to these duties. They are certainly not an expensive body, and surely it is desirable to have such a reserve, because in real trouble when the police require assistance you must go to some outside body. Under present conditions you must either call upon the military or the special constables. We are not in favour of calling upon the military if we can possibly help it. The case of Tonypandy has been referred to, where it is said that the military were not a success on that occasion, but it is necessary that you should have such help in reserve.
is it not better to call upon civilians instead of calling upon the military if you can avoid such a course? You may suggest conscripting civilians, but is it not better to keep this body of special constables in existence, although they may not have all the virtues of the professional police force? Yet they do know a little about the work, and they will be
ready to come forward at short notice. They have had instruction in the elements of drill and they have been taught the maxim that the real object and intention of a policeman is not so much to arrest criminals after they have committed crimes but to prevent them committing crimes. The London Police have taken a great deal of teaching in order to learn that their one object should he to prevent crime. The very fact of having a reserve of special constables is likely to do a great deal in the direction of preventing crime. The fact that it is known that you have a special body upon which you can rely in case of need would tend to prevent crime being committed, and that is the object of the Bill before the House.

8.0 P.M.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the House will not be misled by the very temperate and closely-reasoned speech to which we have just listened. According to the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), the real object of the special constabulary being put on a permanent basis is to meet riots by foreigners in our midst. Apparently thousands of Germans, Austrians and Poles are going to rise up, and these special constables are required to suppress these vile rioters; whereas we all know that the average foreigner is much too frightened, timid and disorganised to do anything of the kind. We have had no reason at all put forward for departing from the very nearly 100-yearold practice which has stood us in such good stead in this country. If between 1832 and 1914 we could get on without a permanent special constabulary in times of great stress, when the people were not so well-educated as they are now, when means of communication were not so good for the bringing up of reinforcements to the regulars when required, and when there was not such a wide franchise in the country, why should we have one now and be burdened with the expense of it, of which cost we have heard nothing? There is no Clause in the Bill to show on what Vote the expense is to come, and why should we run the risk of creating a class force in this country which, if it is created and misused, will do more to embitter class feeling and to encourage disorders and riots than anything else? We have had no adequate reason given why such a
force should he created. I think this Bill has been born in the atmosphere which created that ridiculous, useless and expensive defence force of a couple of years ago. It is want of trust in the people that has caused this. It shows a guilty conscience on the part of the Government, their advisers and supporters.
During the War the special constables were enrolled from all classes. There were many trade unionists among them, and it was laid down in the regulations, I think—at any rate, it was a well-established understanding—that the special constables enrolled during the War were not to be used in trade disputes. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who, I suppose, will reply whether that proviso is still to be maintained. Are these men to be sworn in on the understanding that they are not to be used in time of trade disputes? That is very important; otherwise, if you are going to use them for trade disputes you are putting a great strain on trade unionists, and you probably will not get them enrolled as special constables. Is that what the Government want? I would very much like the hon. Gentleman who will answer for the Home Office to explain that. Do they want trade unionists for special constables, and if so will they be called up in time of trade disputes? That point should be dealt with very fully, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will also deal with the question of cost, a matter on which he is very competent to instruct the House.
There is another very extraordinary thing in this Bill, namely, that the proviso which limits the age to 20 is to be done away with, as well as the limiting the age to 50. I interrupted the Home Secretary, and I should like to know whether it is really proposed to enlist youths under 20 as special constables. If so, what is the young limit? Are they going to take boys of 18? As my hon. Friend the, Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) says, if they are not allowed to drink a glass of beer in a public-house, are they to be entrusted with the defence of our homes and liberties in time of civil disturbance? Are they going to enrol lads of 16, who can be enrolled in sufficient numbers to make things extremely objectionable? [Laughter.] Oh, yes; much of the fighting in Ireland in
recent times has been done by boys of 16, and in England, too. In times of disturbance you find the students on one side or the other, either on the side of reaction or of revolution. You will get plenty of young hotheads from the public schools who will join this force as a sort of "rag." Is there to be no limit? Are you going back to 13 and 12? What is the limit? All we know is that the limit of 20 and the limit of 50 are to be swept aside. How old are you going to? Are you going to enrol the greybeards of 70 and 80? There must be some limit. These people will cost money, because you will have a permanent office, staff, bureaucracy, records, and so forth, and the country has to pay. The proposal to do away with the age limit of 20 is ridiculous and dangerous.
The main objections to the Bill have been explained, and I would only repeat them very briefly. The danger is that you will have a picked force with a certain political bias. That is the danger. You will have a sort of Praetorian Guard, and that is the thing that is going to embitter class feeling more than anything else. It will be a most dangerous thing to do in this country. You can do it in Latin countries, or you may do it in Hungary with White Guards, but try it in this country and see what will happen. If this is made permanent there is the danger of getting only a certain class of person with a certain class outlook, and that will be very bad indeed. If it is the duty of every citizen to help to keep the peace, why not enrol citizens to aid the civil power? Why leave it to a picked few? Why not, if necessary conscript people to preserve the peace if it is our duty as citizens to do so? Why does the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University object to that? Is it because he prefers to leave it to those adventurous people who do not care so long as there is a row? I think the old system served too long and too well to be lightly abandoned, and that there has been no adequate reason given for this Bill, and no argument justifying the continuance of an admittedly war-time Measure. The Act of 1832 says that in time of tumult, riot, or felony then special constables can be enrolled. Let us wait till there are tumult, riot and felony, and these people will be forthcoming as they have been in the past. It is a ridiculous Bill, and one
which should be rejected by this House if it has any respect at all left for the English people.

Mr. J. JONES: It has been very inteiv6ting and sometimes amusing to us sitting on these benches to listen to some of the speeches that have been delivered. I am not an expert policeman, neither am I an expert lawyer. I have been in the hands of both, but I am absolutely desirous of understanding what is the meaning of a Bill of this character. Why is it produced at the period in which we are now living? To us who happen to be trade unioinsts and Socialists—at least, I am speaking for myself—it looks rather sinister that after we have passed through the greatest War in history, after we have conquered the enemies abroad, and destroyed the greatest military power the world has ever seen we should be asked to give a Second Beading to a Bill which is not brought forward for the purpose of beating a foreign enemy, but is supposed to be introduced for the purpose of meeting the possible enemy within our own land. Who is that enemy? The Norfolk agricultural labourer because we have seen in the Press during the last few days photographs of policemen guarding students from Cambridge University, who are trying to stop the Norfolk agricultural labourer from getting 25s. a week for 50 hours. They have come from well-provided homes, and all the comforts and luxuries of civilisation have been provided by the labour of others, but now, to assist in the bringing down of the standard of comfort of my class, they are being provided with policemen paid by the nation in order that they might blackleg successfully.
I happen to be a bricklayer's labourer by profession and a Member of Parliament by accident. Suppose at the end of this week 500,000 of my comrades are locked out Is this new Prætorian Guard to he erected, put into red, blue, and white uniforms, or into any other colour, sons of the builders, to picket so that the policemen can be relieved to meet us when we go in procession to Trafalgar Square? What is the object? I could understand it when we were fighting the enemy abroad, but I cannot understand it now except that it is based on class bias and the fear of the future, because the workers are beginning to understand where they are. We have had too many by-elections,
and this Bill, conceived in iniquity, born in sin, is brought forward as an intimation that this Government is out to save us from revolution. If I were a real revolutionist I would welcome it; if I believed in revolution I would say that this Bill is the best thing we could have. It is an indication of the kind of spirit behind revolution, a feeling of hatred, a feeling of fear, and here we have special constables. We have them in Canning Town. Every time we have a strike in the docks the special constables have been called out. We call them bluebottles, because they have always sat on the top of the meat vans. Wherever you find decomposing meat you will find a bluebottle, Who are these people? Foremen in the docks. They do not join the special constables because they want to fight for the country, but in order to keep their jobs, because they think they will curry favour with those in authority. Instead of trusting them you ought to mistrust them; they are the least trustworthy people in the country.
Therefore, I want to say that a Bill of this kind is a premium upon dishonesty. You talk about treachery. The man who sells me to-day will sell you to-morrow. If he has not the moral principle to stand up for the right, he will give, anybody away who pays him, because we were told the other evening here by the ex-Minister of Health that nobody will do anything unless he gets well paid for it. You are bribing these people. They get the best jobs in the docks. They are promoted to foremen in factories, because they put on uniform, and others will not. The honest man is the man who says, "I will not, do that," and the other man is prepared to sell himself for an immediate advantage. We say that this Bill is not necessary. We are going to have a big dispute—I hope we shall not have it, but we are likely to have it—at the end of this week. In London alone, 100,000 men will be locked out. I undertake to say there will not be a single citizen in London all through that dispute who will lose a blink on his top hat because these men are out; there will not be a pane of glass broken. But if you introduce your special constables, I will not promise you what will happen. If you are going to tell us that the ordinary law of the land and the ordinary administrative authority of the land are not good enough to maintain peace and order, then you can look
forward to things happening, because some of the man who are going to be special constables are men who have worked side by side with the men whom they are supposed to keep in order. How will they like to be dominated by these people "drest in a little brief authority "? We have heard about the never-ending bombosity of elected persons, but it is nothing to the never-ending bombosity of non-elected persons, of people who are there by accident.
We protest against this Bill, particularly at this time, on the verge of one of the greatest industrial crises through which we have ever passed, when nearly a million workers are involved in all sorts of industrial trouble, not in fighting for higher wages and better conditions, but simply to try to prevent their going back to worse conditions than those which existed in 1913. Is this the time to bring in a Bill of this kind? If the Government were sensible, they would withdraw this legislation they would say, "We are not going to do anything to make the situation worse than it is now. We will try to conciliate, and not provocate." Instead of that, this Bill has been introduced. There are only two sections of Bolsheviks in this country—the Bolsheviks of the left, a small number, and the Bolsheviks of the right, a big number, who are hacked by some of the most influential organs of the Press. They are trying to incite the ordinary workman to believe that he has got no friends in high places, that he has got no statesman or politicians who will say a good word on his behalf. Now this Bill comes along on top of this great industrial crisis to say that we have got to have special machinery, to dress foremen of the docks in uniform to prevent disputes taking place in the docks, and to intimidate the men who are out to prevent the reduction of wages. The clerks or the general foreman on the job on which a man has been working are to be put into a blue uniform, and if he dares to say "Boo!" to the goose he is likely to get his head cracked, because they are defending law and order. The workman does not believe they are defending law and order, but that they are defending bricks and mortar, property against humanity, and that they are trying to reduce his standard of life to conditions worse than those which prevailed before the War. If
the Government were wise, and understood what government really meant, they would withdraw a Bill of this character, and say to the people: "We are willing to trust you in the future, as the Government of this country have trusted you in the past. Keep order amongst yourselves, and we have got sufficient machinery to deal with you if you are not prepared to obey the law and keep order."

Mr. RITSON: I would like to support the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, because it is not necessary. Like other speakers, I believe that it is more provocative than anything else is likely to be in the industrial world. I will give an illustration or two. I was secretary of a very large division in the miners' area in the 1912 strike. A gentleman was sent down from the sensational Press, because there had been a small incident in one of our pay offices, where the rush for union money had been rather more than we could cope with, and a message had been received in this city that there had been a 'riot amongst miners in that division. I was asked how the riot arose, and because I could give no satisfactory evidence, so that there could be a severe and sensational Press account, he actually said, "Good Heavens! Cannot you give me come copy in some way or other, so that I can send up to my people in London a report that will give satisfaction? If you do not want riots, if you do not wish to apply your special constables, the first thing I would ask the Government to do is to muzzle the sensational Press about riots that never occur.
I have been a special constable myself, because I felt it my duty at the time, but not for the same purpose for which you are asking for special constables now At that time, in the part where I lived, after the Hartlepools and Scarborough attacks from the sea men felt it their duty as parents—never mind as citizens —to be prepared to guide their women and children back to a place of safety. Like hundreds of others I joined the special police force, because I felt it my duty as a parent and a human being to perform that service. I want to tell the Home Secretary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has told him, that once you begin to ask trade unionists in Durham and the mining centres there to become special constables at a time of industrial
unrest, you will not get them, or if you do get any at all, it, will be, "God help them," because even our women would object very seriously. I can give the words of a very eminent chief constable who said only yesterday, "We do not want your special constables. We had sufficient of them in the past. They did well, but, so far as the trained men are concerned, they are in our way in times of peace and riot." In Durham, as I think we proved in every part of the coalfield in the last strike, we had not a hitch, because we were trusted. What happened in my district? I sent to the Chief Constable of a very large town to come to a large colliery. He said, "What are we to do?" I said, "Come to the men, and trust them. You need not speak politics or agree with their strike, but show you trust them, and I will give you a guarantee that you will not want a man at all." He came to a meeting, and they cheered him like a duke and asked him for some funds, which he gave them. Hon. Members need not smile at that, because the Earl of Durham, when there was a strike on for six weeks at his pit, was asked for £1,000, and we got it: although we were fighting against him. The Chief Constable came and he brought artistes with him, and instead of having matters in disorder we had good sense and good feeling. I believe that if we trust the people and do not bring in such situations, the military mind which is possessed by some chief constables to act upon the industrial worker, matters will go all right. You have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill has said, in sonic police forces to-day chief constables who have that military mind, and who wish to exercise it in every dispute, and if that is done you will not get anywhere. You want to crush that spirit. You do not want to bring that class of mind into industrial disputes. If you do you will in all probability cause more trouble than you anticipate.
I appeal to the Government to trust the people. An appeal goes out for order. How often has it been repeated from this side of the House that it is not beneficial for us to have disorder? We are against disorder, but if you bring your special constables along and flaunt that power in our faces, and if there is an endeavour made by a special constable 5 feet. 2 inches to look after a great big miner
6 feet 6 inches and tell him what he has got to do, you will get disorder, and that is what we do not want. In matters of this sort the chief constable, or the officer, who has tact, is worth 50 of your active men. I have known superintendents of a police force whose power was greater by kindliness and tact than 50 of his active men. That is the sort of police force we want. We do not want these other people to be thrown upon us at this time. I urge the Government in the name of God and of humanity to withdraw this Bill and so remove the cause of disorder.

Mr. SNELL: I hope that those promoting this Bill are conscious of the very serious step they are taking. To judge from their silence in the face of protests from this side of the House it would seem as though they were either unconscious of the danger or entirely contemptuous of 'the results of their action. Why is it that this Measure is put forward at this particular time? We had led ourselves to believe that we were not growing more criminal as a nation, but even more law-abiding than is our great tradition. We had believed that the forces of education would help to restrain man's passions in times of very great excitement and temptation. Yet this is the time chosen by the Government to bring forward a Measure which, to say the least, is provocative to a very great portion of the people of this country!
Laws can only be really serviceable when they rest upon the widest possible assent of the people to whom those laws are applied. But here you have a piece of legislation which, it. seems to us at least, represents class legislation as nearly as any we are likely to get. What is the need for promoting this Measure at this particular time? Who is it proposed to use these special constables against' Who is to be intimidated, on the one baud, or to be protected, on the other? The danger of any serious uprising amongst the English people is remote, and the attempt to impose this new coercive force upon the people is really provocative and not in the least helpful. Too little attention has been paid to the protests that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), and others as to the possibility of mis
apprehension in regard to these special constables in the time of a trade dispute. Suppose you have a lock-out or strike, a temporary trade dispute, in which men's feelings are keenly aroused. You get people in a state of great excitement feeling a sense of deep personal grievance. You have one of their leaders, perhaps a trusted and beloved leader, speaking to them and helping to direct them on lines that he thinks their case demands, and you have, on the other hand, one of these industrial black-and-tans that you are proposing to create, one of these special constables who may be on the opposite side of the fight. The forces clash. The special constable is not an impartial person in that case. He attempts to arrest the men's leader and immediately, that which has been slowly smouldering, bursts into a violent flame and you will have trouble which this Bill will have provoked.
Note the contrast between the special constables in this case and the ordinary police force. It is really very great. Whatever else he is, the policeman is impartial. Hon. Members who know anything of the government of provincial towns and cities know that the Watch Committee and the people in general trust the chief constable, who, on the whole, is everybody's friend. What he advises in a time of excitement has tremendous weight even with the most excitable person amongst those who are in a dispute. But here the Government are proposing to supplement the work he is doing, and even indirectly to undermine his authority by bringing into play, in trying circumstances such as have been pictured, men whose impartiality will he suspect from the very moment they assume their place. And that is a very serious matter.
We are asked to assent to this Bill because it is to stop crime. What crime exists that you want to stop by these special constables? We are on the whole a law-abiding nation, and we do not want People to coerce us into doing what it is our special will and permanent desire to do. It is said that the force is to be available in the case of a riot. What riot, or riots, do you foresee? Who is going to riot, and against whom? We believe that there is something
very sinister behind this Bill, something that we have not got out from those promoting it; something that is not openly defended from the other side. Before we can give a vote in favour of the Bill, we desire to have that matter very thoroughly cleared up. There is one other point. This Bill is an attempt to dilute the police force with a quite inferior type of constable, who is, as I have said, suspect on the ground of partiality. In times of great unemployment such as we are passing through if you want more people to keep the peace in the land, employ more policemen, but do not attempt to undermine the prestige of the civic force which on the whole has gained the respect of the nation by bringing in these voluntary blacklegs. We all know the type of persons who, in a coal strike, will go and lug ladies' portmanteaux about on the platforms at. Paddington, Waterloo, and elsewhere. They enjoy their heroism of the day; they have got a charming audience to approve of them; but they will not go into the mine and hew coal at the face, for there is no audience there, there is nothing to tempt them. It is the same with the special constables. They will come out at a time when the popular Press has rigged up and fomented some dispute in your streets, and gain a little cheap heroism, perhaps, by batoning down boys of 16 such as have been referred to. Possessing, as I think we happily do in this country, a law-abiding people, let us put our trust in them. The best thing you can ever do with our people is to put them on their honour to obey the laws that have been passed by the nation itself in this and the other House. If you put the English people on their honour to keep the peace on all occasions and in all circumstances, you will not require the provocative special constabulary which is proposed in this Bill.

Mr. WRIGHT: I hope very earnestly that the Government will withdraw this Bill as being entirely unnecessary. I think it is quite obvious that it is not necessary in normal times, and it would be of no advantage during abnormal times. The only abnormal times I can think of when special constables would be necessary would be times of industrial disputes—strikes or lock-outs; and, however much the Government may disavow that they have anything of the kind in
view, there is no doubt in my mind that that will be the impression in the minds of average working men in this country. I have lived long enough to have witnessed and to have taken some slight part in industrial disputes in days gone by, and that memory goes back to 1872 or 1874. I have lived in parts of England, Wales and Scotland during times of great industrial disputes—strikes and lock-outs —and I have never known a single occasion where special constables would have been an advantage, though I have known many where they would have been a distinct disadvantage.
I lived through quite a number of disputes in Yorkshire, and in 1893 there was a dispute which lasted over 16 weeks, when the Yorkshire miners were locked out to resist a very serious reduction in wages. During that dispute, the only occasion when any serious trouble occurred was at a small village called Wath-on-Dearne, not very far from Doncaster, and the disturbance occurred on the Leger day, when all the, ordinary policemen of the, district had been withdrawn to the Doncaster racecourse to protect the people who had gathered there. In this little place a small group of men, not belonging to the district, created some trouble, which, had it been wisely handled, would not, I am sure, have developed into anything of the nature of a riot. I was in South Wales dining the long dispute there in 1898, and I saw no evidence at all of trouble, but on one occasion a large demonstration was being held such as has been described by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), where 10,000 people were assembled at a perfectly orderly meeting. Before the meeting took place, however, policemen had been drawn up in the main street, and while it was in progress, and while I was actually addressing the meeting, with the same calmness that I possess at the present moment, a magistrate of the district rode into the meeting on horseback. That was a very distinct provocation to the men who were assembled, and some of the miners, who were seated on some heaps of stones which they had been breaking for the local authority, were actually stooping down to pick up stones to shy at the magistrate when we appealed to them to remain seated. They did remain seated, and the magistrate turned his horse round and left the meeting, and no further trouble occurred, but
it was a very serious provocation to the men. That was the only trouble, so far as I know, that occurred in South Wales in 1898 during a dispute which lasted 16 weeks.
I have lived in Scotland since 1900, and have the honour and privilege of representing a large industrial area, one part of which, however, is a residential district where many people live who have business in Glasgow. In the event of a dispute, or of any occasion arising when special constables would be required, they certainly would not be drawn from the ordinary workers of the district, and, in my judgment, they would not be necessary. It is a fallacy to think that we are not in favour of peace; it is a fallacy to think that the influence of the trade union leaders upon the opinion of the workmen is not great. It is very great, and I think that if the Government would trust the people, and not provoke them in the way in which, in my judgment, this Bill is calculated to provoke them, there would be less occasion for Measures of this kind. Therefore, I hope that the trust which has been reposed in the workers in days gone by will be continued, and that the Government will withdraw this So far as young policemen are concerned, I am hound to admit that on one or two occasions I have known them to be rather severely handled —not in times of industrial disputes—but in nearly every case it has been a question of lack of tact and judgment, and there has been no other cause at all. I feel sure I am expressing the feeling, not merely of the industrial workers of the Rutherglen Division, but of the people who live in the well-appointed houses, because they know as well as we know that under normal conditions special constables are unnecessary, while under the extraordinary conditions which prevail in times of dispute they would be a source of provocation rather than advantage.

Mr. LANSBURY: I oppose this Bill because I think we have quite enough people already to keep us in order under normal conditions. I do not share the admiration for the police expressed by my colleague the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes)—I mean the uniformed police —or for any uniformed persons at all. I object to the theory that the British people, or, indeed, any people, necessarily
need persons to take care of them and show them how to behave. I have lived, like many other Members, in an industrial and a very poor district of London nearly all my life, and the only time I have seen any sort of riot has been when the police authorities have behaved differently to a crowd of poor people from the way in which they deal with a crowd at this end of London. We are not allowed the same privileges in East London to block the streets as are allowed to people at this end of London. Only the week before last the whole of this part of the metropolis was blocked for some hours in the morning in order that a fantastic rehearsal of a certain ceremony which is going to take place in a few days might take place during business hours. Had a few unemployed men marched to this end of London and blocked the traffic in that fashion without giving any notice they would probably have had their heads cracked and their procession dispersed. If you had the same sort of administration for the unemployed processionists, or the trade union processionists, that you have for the wedding festivities and ceremonies of that kind that take place up here, I do not think there would ever be any rioting at all. I believe the best safeguard for peace and quietness is to let everyone have perfect liberty to say what he thinks and always to have freedom of expression, and when I hear from the Home Secretary that these new policemen are necessary in order to prevent riots, I am certain riots only take place when you try to suppress people by denying them the right of free speech, public meeting, and so on.
I am sorry the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) is not present because I should like to say that the fact that the Government has to come here and tell us that we must not only have the police, the military, the Air Force, and the Navy, but we must have also a great part of the employing class enrolled as special constables, is the greatest testimony to the iniquity of the capitalist system that it is possible to bring forward. We have lived all these years and now, with the efficient police force that you have at your disposal, you are obliged to admit that you cannot preserve order unless you get these other people roped in. If you rope them in that will be the greatest incitement to disorder possible. Who are the special con
stables at our end of London? I do not believe a single workman has ever been a special constable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us how many bonâ fide workmen joined the special constabulary. If this Bill passes and you come to us and ask us to enrol special constables we will enrol ourselves We will be the special constables for you, and if there is a trade dispute we will take care of the meat vans, and the meat, of course, and everything else that is necessary to be taken care of. But the right hon. Gentleman's Department would find some means of preventing our people being enrolled in this special constabulary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] You will allow me to know what has happened. During the time when it was imagined that the services of everyone would be needed because of the triple-alliance strike that was going to take place, Poplar was severely left alone. It happened that we were who we are. I expect West Ham was also severely left alone, and the reason was that you could not trust us because you only want in this special constabulary the people who will represent your particular point of view during a trade dispute. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He will not always be at the Home Office. Perhaps he would be a better sort of person than his predecessor. I hope he is.
But that is all beside the point. The point is that he is not really the head of that Department. The gentlemen who are at the head of the Department are the permanent officials, and the permanent officials are soaked with the idea that we in the Labour movement are a sort of bloodthirsty revolutionists who cannot be trusted with the administration of affairs, and when it comes to setting up this special constabulary I am certain that what happened in the past will happen in the future. You will got a few shopkeepers—not all; most of them are too poor to give you the time—and you will have a set of young men who do not even live in our district. Sons of employers, Poplar only exists for them to take money out of and spend somewhere else. You will get these young gentlemen and you will get a few people in public positions to form your constabulary there, and it is certain that if you attempted, with a force of that kind, to make any interference in a trade dispute, you will have the employers
acting on behalf of the community against the men who are on strike against. them—not against the community but against those employers. I do not think that is right. It is true that during the War it was necessary, especially during air raids, to have men and women who had the courage to go nut and help those who were in danger. But that is an entirely different proposition. What you are putting up now is a proposition that in order to keep someone in order you must have these special constables.
I should like to make my point quite clear. I meant it when I said I am sorry the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Swansea is not here. This is the severest condemnation of the great capitalist system that it is possible to bring forward. If the capitalist system made for peace, for liberty, for comfort, for the enjoyment of life, why should there be any fear of rioting at all? None of you want to go and riot. I do not want to go and riot because my living comes to me day by day; yours does the same. You do not want to go out and fight, because you have food and you have a home. The capitalist system has left 2,000,000 people at least without a chance of earning their living. They are the people you are afraid of and they are the production of the capitalist system, and the proper thing for this House to do is not to go on dealing with evils in this way but to get rid of them and then you would not need your special constables or your police. What is the reason you need Army and police force? It is simply because you have organised your social and industrial life on such a basis that it leaves masses of your people unable to get the means of life. You are not prepared to recognise that and deal with it in a systematic mariner so as to get rid of those evils but you come forward and say, "Let us set up some auxiliary body in order that when these hungry people get too obstreperous and will not submit to hunger any longer and come and show themselves in the streets, they may be driven back again." Then we are asked, "Would you not rather have these official people than have the military?" If I am to be dealt with at all by any sort of force, I would rather he dealt with by a force that is disciplined and whose actions can be called in question than by irresponsible persons set up in this sort of fashion. Further no one on that side has yet said
a word about the age. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us what is the age limit he proposes to set up. Is it to be 14, 15, 16 years of age, or what? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is the age limit. It. must have been discussed. Is it to be under 20 years of age If so, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would care to be arrested by a boy of 10, a boy of 18, or a boy of 17. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman knows his Bill so little that he cannot tell us what is the age limit. We are entitled to assume that it will be anything under 20 years of age. Therefore, I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would care to be arrested by one of these boys. I know he would not, and I know perfectly well that no boy would be able to arrest him. There would he no peace and no quietness either for him or for the boy.
Look what you are training these boys to be. You are training them to be a. kind of spy on their fathers, and on people old enough to be their grandfathers and grandmothers: but that is not what you want them for, really. You want them to be trained to act as blacklegs in trade disputes. I will give the right hon. Gentleman credit for all the good intentions that the road to Hades is paved with, if it pleases him: but I am quite certain that this Bill is a Bill for the express purpose of providing the capitalists with the sort of persons who have control in Italy at the present time. You are going to have the Fascisti here, so that during trade disputes they will be ready to put down trade unionists, to put down the men who are fighting for what we think are their rights. You want to catch them young, because middle-aged men would not be used for this sort of thing. It is only the sort of people who believe in adventure, and who join the Army when they are young, for adventure, that you want to get. It is only those sort of persons you will be able to get. I should like to know what will be the age limit.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I am quite prepared to answer my hon. Friend's question, hut I thought it more convenient to wait until all the questions had been put. The provision in the Bill that does away with the age limit is restricted to
Scotland. The provision has been put in merely in order to remove the age barriers and to bring the position into conformity with the rest of the country.

Mr. LANSBURY: What will the age limit be? Will it be 20, or under?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is no age limit.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: There you are! Now we know. This is said to be done for the benefit of Scotland. We can have them at the age of 14, or at the age of 12, even. You can have them at any age. [HON. MEMBERS: "At two."] The right hon. Gentleman must consider what age limit he is going to fix. What is going to be the cost of this little adventure in amateur police? I have always understood that a Bill could not be brought in involving the expenditure of public money, unless some estimate had been formed of the cost. I should like to raise the point whether this Bill is in order; whether it is possible for the Government to bring in a Bill involving public expenditure without first of all having that expenditure brought in as a money Resolution and passed through Committee. We cannot get to know from the Ministers what the cost will be. We know that it will be something, but we do not know where the money has been estimated, whether it has been before the House, or whether it is to come in some future Estimate. I should like to know what the cost will be, and whether the House has already passed some Estimate in regard to the expenditure involved.

Major ATTLEE: There are one or two points in regard to this little Bill with which I should like to deal. I was struck by the speech of the Home Secretary. He is always going a little bit in front. Formerly we had special constables when there was a period of riot or disturbance. Now we are to have the constables first. It reminds me of people being arrested and put in prison before they are tried. We seem to be getting into the position, so to speak, in which you hang the man first and try him afterwards. We are departing from the principle of having the special constabulary only for periods of crisis; it is to be an organised, definite force in time of profound peace. The worst feature about the Bill is the revela-
tion of the mind of its authors. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has got the wind up. I am not satisfied with his action with regard to deportations. I said at the time, and I think so still, that he showed a state of panic. Here, again, we have a state of panic. It. is in a state of panic that the very worst things are done. If we carry our minds back to the history of 100 years ago, after the last great war that was to end war, in 1815, the Ministers of that date were in exactly the same sort of panic. If we search the records of the Home Office we shall find the same sort of action taken, and the same sort of police work done by the Justices of the Peace, who then, as now, were selected in the main from one political class and one industrial class. They were able to use the force to deal with trade disputes with their employés.
It seems to me that the infection of lawlessness which is running round the world has come to this country. Some people think that, this innocent little Bill is in support of law and order. I do not think it is anything of the sort. It is the organised lawlessness that you find up and down the world. This swearing in of special constables is what you get in disturbed parts of the United States at the present time; the idea that you cannot trust to the ordinary forces of law and order and that you must invoke a sort of organised mob force from a particular class. You get it in certain States of America, and you get it in Italy, in the Fascisti. It is the idea: "Let us get some sort of organised citizen force which will be able to be used if there are any people we do not particularly like." In America they do not like the Catholics and the Jews. In this country it may be they will not like Bolshevists, or trade unionists, or the Labour party. This Bill is a sign of organised lawlessness. It is a departure from our ordinary civilised administration. Already the Home Secretary has shown by arresting the Irish deportees, very doubtful administrative action. Here again he is setting up a force to get away from the regular police force, a band of irregulars. Obviously he is afraid of something if he is doing this.
Apparently, having passed through the crisis of the War, and our special constabulary force having come to an end, this force is being created waiting
for another war. I do not know. I agree that all the more active persons in Europe at present scorn to be working up for the next great war. Whether these, special constables are really to be there in case we have another war on the continent or an invasion, I do not know, but it does look more like as if the Home Secretary were contemplating some kind of civil unrest. Is he contemplating that there will be a Labour Government in a few years and that some of the livelier people on the back benches opposite will try a kaputsch against the Labour Government, and is he forging a weapon to be used by the Labour Government against them? I do not think that it is that, but that it is simply an attempt to recruit an organised blackleg force. If you read up the subject of discontents, you will see that Bacon's essay on Discontents points out very clearly the futility of this sort of action which the Home Secretary has taken. In his essay Bacon points out that the right thing is to get rid of the causes of discontent, and he points out that, with a large number of people with no subsistence, you are likely to get riots unless there is a better distribution of wealth and happiness among the people to prevent these riots occurring.
That is not the way taken by this Government. This Government is a Government of tranquillity, tranquillity, so far as doing anything for removing the causes of discontent among the people is concerned, but apparently a Government of great activity in repressing the results of Government inaction. It is quite likely that we may see disturbances if we go on much longer in that way. The present condition of agriculture may lead to disturbance as it did in 1830, when the whole of the south of England, Surrey, and Hampshire and Sussex, which always votes Conservative now, were in a state of revolt on the wages question. You have in Norfolk now a struggle on the wages question, but the way to do it is not as in 1830 to send in Yeomanry by your magistrates, arid send the people overseas. They called it transportation to Botany Bay then, and they now call it Empire Settlement, but there is not much difference. The real way is to remove, these causes of discontent.
I am not going to say more on the question of the action to be taken when riots occur, because riots should not be permitted to occur. We are a most law-abiding people. We get enormous groups of excited people, and we very seldom are troubled, and we shall not have trouble as long as the people are carefully handled, and they do not have intense bitterness in their conditions. But if you have society, as it is at the present clay, with great masses of people herded together and able to come together in great crowds, and if you have great causes of social injustice, then you are likely to have disturbances. If instead of dealing with those causes you recruit a special force drawn from the middle and professional classes, apparently extended to take in boys, perhaps in order to mobilise all the Public School boys—and you might even get the Boy Scouts—you might get a big force, but if you do you are simply inviting Civil War. If you start that sort of thing and make an organisation like that on the one hand, you are inciting every single unbalanced person who believes in direct action on the other side.
We do not believe in it. We do not want to see Civil War in this country but we believe if you start this sort of organisation that we see already, which is so like the White Guards, the Ku Klux Klan, the Facisti, which are all developed on these lines, then you are heading for a revolution, in which you must get violence and in which you will ruin this country altogether. It may be said that I am building mountains out of mole hills, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary are not the people who should seek these powers for law and order. I do not think, judging by the evidence of their action so far, that they have sufficient calmness to be entrusted with these powers. I think that their state of mind is somewhat like that of those people, somewhat unskilled, who would be called on hurriedly to deal with the work of Government, not like the well-trained police force whom the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) represents, who understand these matters, hut just the sort of half-trained, fanatical people, who get puffed up with a slight bit of authority and take the hasty action that leads to riot and bloodshed.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The remarks of the last two speakers have shown such a complete misapprehension of the Bill that it may be useful to make a few remarks upon one particular point in their argument. They speak of this special constabulary as being something in the nature of Fascisti, whereas the whole intention of the Bill is to avoid the creation of anything in the nature of Fascisti. There is, as every hon. Member must admit, a possibility—I do not say probability; I do not think so—of circumstances arising, owing largely to economic causes and the amount of distress and unemployment in the country, when desperate men might attempt to gain their object by riots and violence. In conditions like that, if the trouble is accentuated by bitter trade disputes, there will always be a tendency among younger men of the class who are better off in this world to take the law into their own hands and band themselves into collections of young men of the essential nature of Fascisti. That is to say, young men will take upon themselves to proclaim that they are more patriotic than the Government and have a keener knowledge of the situation, and, therefore, without any enrolment under the auspices of the Government, and entirely as an independent force, an illegal force, to take the law into their own hands and take violent action in opposition to the riots and violence of the other side.
The enrolling of special constables, particularly young men of a particular class at the time of a very great social unrest, is the only way by which a Fascisti movement could be prevented in those conditions. Therefore the last speakers were under a complete misapprehension. If special constables are enrolled by the Home Office under the law of the land, you will in no sense of the word get something in the nature of Fascisti, but if such a force be not enrolled in a time of crisis there is the very greatest danger that. Fascisti may be formed. I tell hon. Members plainly that there are circumstances which might arise, even in my own district, in which, if there were no provision such as this Bill makes, I might. be a leader of those Fascisti myself.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will do my best to answer the various points that have been put in reference to this Bill. We have had a very interesting Debate.
I know well that many hon. Members opposite feel strongly on the subject, and therefore I may say that we have had a very moderate Debate. We have certainly had one or two very eloquent speeches, and, if I am not presumptuous in saying so, a very able speech from a new recruit, the hon. Member for. Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), and I would like to congratulate the Labour party on his accession to their ranks. I do not suppose that. I shall be able to do it, but I would like to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite that there is something sinister behind this Bill. There is no such object. We are really disagreeing about a very narrow point indeed. If we did away with this Bill altogether we would still be living under the 1831 Act, which allows special constables to be appointed, and we would still be living under the 1882 Municipal Corporations Act, which says that Justices of the Peace must appoint so many special constables every year.
What are we disagreeing about? The very narrow point that these special constables can be appointed, although no immediate emergency is in sight. So far as I can see, that is the only point on which we are differing. What is the alternative which we have to face if we do not have this Bill? Would hon. Members opposite prefer the military to help or merely to have the 1831 Act? The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked one or two questions and made one or two statements. He said that the 1914 Act was a War Measure, and dead. That is not quite an accurate presentation of the case. The 1914 Act is not dead. It is alive to-day, so far as those persons are concerned who became special constables during the War. It is also a live Act in so far as Orders in Council issued by the Home Secretary are concerned with those men. My hon. Friend said that it was purely a War Measure. The Home Secretary quoted a very interesting passage from the Desborough Committee's Report, which stated that it was in the interests of the public that there should be a properly established force of special constables. That was a unanimous Report, and it was signed by two members of the Labour party, one the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) and the other the hon. Member for South
East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady). They are both very respected members of the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill said that he would not support any Bill that put the people under untrained persons. I should have thought that they would much more likely be under untrained persons if we did not take some steps to form a body before any emergency occurs, and that members of the force would be much more likely to be responsible persons who had had a certain amount of experience if this body was formed before the emergency occurred, before the excitement of the emergency is upon us. All these men are to be under the police authorities in the different districts, that is to say, under the police themselves. I do not think that I need answer the statement that this Bill is politically biassed and anti-Labour. I do not believe it for a moment. [HON. MEMBERS "We do "] I quite realise that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will one of these days form a Government—I do riot say in the near future. I am certain that if they were sitting on the Government Benches they would welcome a. Bill of this kind, which gave them an established force to deal with special situations. The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked me a question and I was foolish enough to get up and answer it immediately, which is always a bad plan, because you can say only "yes" or "no," and you cannot develop your statement. The hon. Member asked me about the age limit. I explained to him that the provision in. the Bill doing away with the age limit referred merely to Scotland. It was put in in order to remove the age barriers throughout the country and to make the provisions uniform for the country as a whole; but I am authorised by the Home Secretary to say that, if it be thought advisable, in Committee he will accept an Amendment retaining the limit of 20 years, although doing away with the limit of 50 years of age. It is quite conceivable that a very good man over 50 years of age may be found ready to serve.
One or two questions were asked me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He asked about expenditure. In the last fill year for which we have records we spent £58,000 on special
constables throughout the country. Under this Bill there will not be any additional expenditure whatsoever. The organisation exists, and the only thing we are doing is preventing the organisation from falling to pieces; we are merely assuring that vacancies as they arise will be filled. He asked another question with regard to the trade unions, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) asked the same question. The Act of 1919 was cited, but none of the provisions of that Act are included in this Bill at all. This has nothing to do with the Act of 1919, which was a Police Act.

Mr. HAYES: My reference to the 1919 Act, in relation to this Bill, was to show that any special constable appointed under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, if it does become one, will, if he happens to be a trade unionist, dissatisfied with the employment as a special constable during a dispute, and if he says anything in the course of his occupation likely to cause disaffection among the men, which brings him within the Act of 1919, be rendered liable, to two years' imprisonment. Whether he is a special constable or not he is liable.

Mr. LOCKER LAMPSON: No.

HON. MEMBERS: He ought to be.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is it, "He ought to be "! That is the spirit of the whole Bill.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member for Edge Hill is not correct. That only refers to police officers.

Mr. HAYES: May I read the Section:
 If any person causes, or attempts to cause, or does any act calculated to cause disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or induces, or attempts to induce, or does any act calculated to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit breaches of discipline, he shall he guilty of a misdemeanour "—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. HAYES: I am endeavouring to instruct the House on this particular point—
 and shall be liable to conviction on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years.
Within the breaches of discipline there are Orders made by the Secretary of
State, that govern police officers, and make certain offences for the dereliction of duty that might result from anything that might be said. If any policeman has disaffection caused within him, by a remark of a special constable, who is a constable within the meaning of any Police Act—because, in the Special Constables Order, 1916, it clearly lays down that a special constable shall be subjected to these duties:
A special constable shall, throughout the police area for which he is appointed, and also in any adjoining, police area, have all the powers, privileges and duties which any constable duly appointed has within his constablewick by virtue of the common law or of any statute for the time being in force.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as creating disaffection is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member. There, he is perfectly correct. That does come in, so far as the duties of a police officer are concerned. That is not touched by this Bill at all, which has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. HAYES: I should like to make this clear, although I do not want to be argumentative. Under the Special Constables Order, 1914, and the Order made there-under, which this Bill endeavours to perpetuate, it is stated that any special constable duly appointed has, within his constablewick, by virtue of the common law or of any Statute for the time being in force, the powers, privileges and duties of any constable. Therefore, you are perpetuating that in the Special Constables Act of 1914. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?" and "Oh! "]

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Nobody is going to be forced to be a special constable. In regard to trade unions, nobody in a trade union is going to be forced to be a special constable. A member can join of his own free will. Certainly, the Government, and nobody who is anything to do with the Home Office, in the least wants to compel trade unionists to become special constables.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will they be used in trade disputes? That was my question.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think I have tried to answer all the definite questions that have been put. The hon. Mem
ber for Edge Hill argued that some places did not have, special constables sit all. He asked, therefore, "Why should you oblige those places, which have done without them in the past, to have; them in the future?" I think he quoted one or two such places. There is nothing in this Bill to force any place to have special constables if it does not want them.

Mr. HAYES: I quoted the places as examples of good government.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: At any rate, there is nothing to compel these places to have special constables. I hope my hon. Friends will let us have this Bill—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like a reply to my question, which I put very specifically. Will the trade unions be assured that the Force will not bf; used in trade disputes, as during the War? [HON MEMBERS: "Why not!"]

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that no trade unionist is going to be forced to become: a special constable. If he becomes a special constable, he becomes one knowing perfectly well the duties ho will have to perform. If he says to himself, "I do not feel, if I become a special constable, that I shall be able to carry out those duties," it is his business not to become a special constable. I hope my hon. Friends will allow us to have this Bill. We have had a great many speeches, but very few definite points hi regard to the Bill as a whole. I think I have answered the points put, but if there is any definite question which I have not answered the Home Secretary will reply to it.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for Home Affairs on, I think, his first speech as Minister in this House, as I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) upon the able, temperate, and experienced speech which he made in moving the rejection of the Bill. Knowing what we do of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and my right hon. Friend, who are in charge of this Bill, I do not think any of us here would charge them with anything sinister in bringing in the Measure

Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, they would.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not think they will be charged with that. They say there is nothing sinister and nothing anti-labour in the Bill. That may not be the Government intention, lout what we have to deal with is probable results. My hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary would answer any definite question put to him. I should like to put one definite question, to which we have not yet had a plain answer. Do the Government consider that there is more likelihood now of disorder, violence, and destruction than there was before the War? Otherwise, on what do they justify this Bill? Why do they want change. Was it not sufficient before the War? The Home Secretary said that the principle of the special constable is as old as the Conquest, that it came down from before the Conquest, and that we had the Special Constables Act, under which we have been working, from the year 1831 down to 1914. That is a good long period, and I should like the House to cast their minds back, historically, to what has happened during that period. Of course, there was trouble —industrial trouble, political trouble—but how very seldom, in the history of that period, was there any time when the military were called out, and were used. How very seldom even the special constables were called out, and used. There were exceptional conditions. There will be exceptional civil disorders under any system which you adopt, but here you have, for nearly 100 years, a system working which has maintained the tranquillity of the country, in which there has been extremely little bloodshed compared with any other country in Europe. Why cannot you maintain it? Do you maintain or do you not--that is the question I put to the Government—that the people of today, after the War, are really more lawless and more difficult to keep under control, so that you must have a different kind of force? HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "Now we are getting there! "] If the Government say that there is a change in the general character of our people, I entirely differ from them. I challenge that view; I think our working class is just as law-abiding as it ever was, and I think if the police were a sufficient power to control civic disturbance for 90 years before the War they are capable of doing it now, and are still a sufficient force for the purpose. I will not say the Government are trying to create—because they
have no sinister purpose—but they will, in fact, create a new defence force. Surely the police are far more suitable than any special defence force such as the Government propose to raise. There is this about the character of the police—at any rate, they are chosen from all classes of the workers, and the police can-riot be and are not suspected of being industrial partisans. They are not suspicious and they are not suspected. What is going to be the character of the new force? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, in effect, that the working class would not belong to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] Yes, what he said came to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] Yes, by implication. I know the working class are supposed to be allowed to belong to it, but they must be ready to turn out against their own class at any moment. l HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Now we are coming to the real fact. What is the point? In the last year or two there was a railway strike, and the Government of the day declared that it was an attack against the nation. The Government of the day, of whom hon. Gentlemen opposite were supporters, declared that it was an attack against the nation and that the workers were holding up the community. They then proceeded to ask for a citizen guard. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to have a citizen guard ready whenever a similar occasion arises again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "]

Mr. MAXTON: We will give you a citizen guard.

Mr. TREVELYAN: As a matter of fact the railway strike came to an end and that citizen guard never came into operation, but I saw a good deal of what was going on in one of the great centres of population at that time—in Newcastle—and I know what was the effect on the working class of Newcastle of the announcement of the creation of a citizen guard. In Newcastle there was not even the scintilla of a disturbance; there was no sign whatever that the strike was going to lead to any disturbance at all, but the fury of the working class, not only of the railway men, but of all others who were in any degree sympathetic with them, was very remarkable when that announcement was made about the citizen guard. The point is that this White
Guard is created by the Government, the unfortunate consequence will be that. it will create a desire on the other side for a Red Guard. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "]

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Law and order?

Mr. TREVELYAN: In Italy, and in Bavaria, it is "law and order "where the Fascisti, an irregular force, or the regular forces—as in the case of Bavaria at the present time—are being used by the Government deliberately against the workers and the same thing may apply here. If the Home Secretary says that the force which he hopes to create is not to be of this character, will he give the promise that in the mining districts of Northumberland and Durham he will have a proper proportion of the working miners in the force. [HON. MEMBERS: "By conscription? "] Will he take them if they volunteer for the force? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I wish to have an answer to my question from the Home Secretary himself. Will he take, in Newcastle, a proper proportion according to population, of boilermakers and engineers as well as of shopkeepers and other classes? I shall be very interested to hear what the Home Secretary says to that. May I say one more word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. On this side of the House the very last thing that we want is class war. Class war is very easy to start, but very difficult to stop. Some people, I know, think a class war is inevitable. Personally I do not think it is inevitable but I do believe it is possible, and I think nothing is so liable to create class war as making it possible for the Government of the day to have a force which will in fact—as it was beginning to be in the railway strike—be chosen from one class and one only. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] Yes, in the railway strike it was so chosen, and if the result of this Bill is, as we think it must be, the creation of such a force as that, then the Government will be taking a first step in the direction of that class war which we on all sides of the House join in deprecating.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We have heard a great deal of lip service from hon. Members opposite on the keeping of law and order, but the majority of the
speeches which I have heard have been preaching the reverse of law and order. The hon. Member who has just sat down said there was nothing so likely to create class warfare as keeping law and order. That is, in effect, what he said. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said no honest man would become a special constable. There have been other extraordinary statements of that character. What really is the reason for the creation of a system of special constables? Surely it is due to the activities, I will not say of hon. Members opposite, but of certain of our trade union leaders, because what have they been doing? They have been preaching class warfare. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] Yes, they have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name! "] Well, there are plenty over there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name! "] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is one, and the hon. Member for Silvertown is another.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to ask the hon. and gallant. Member what he is charging me with? [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): Has the hon. Member risen to a point of Order?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Sir. I want to know with w hat the hon. and gallant Member is charging me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. Member who interrupts has already been in prison for saying that people should not pay rates and taxes.

Mr. LANSBURY: That was not preaching class war. stupid man?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I thank the hon. Member for giving me such an excellent definition of the difference between class warfare and the preservation of law and order. As I was saying before I was interrupted, one of the great reasons for the necessity of creating a force in this country which will preserve law and order is the experiences we have had, for instance, with the Council of Action and other bodies of that character. What is the whole claim. I will not say of the whole, but of a certain section, of the trade union leaders? Their whole creed is to hold up the community to
ransom. On the one hand they have the Government as their opponents, and on the other hand they have their employers as their opponents, and then they say, "We will hold up the community to ransom until pressure is put on the employers by the Government in order to give us what we want." That is.a system of organised warfare against the community, which the community is perfectly entitled to organise to stop. Let us take a little more of the tyranny of certain sections of organised labour. We have this week the question of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, who are fighting the Marine Workers' Union. They are holding up the trade and the shipping of the country for their dispute. Who suffers? The community, the taxpayer. In the coal strike we had the case of an organised attempt to wreck the whole prosperity of this country by stopping the pumping machinery and thus destroying the mines. Is the community not to organise against the organised destruction of its own security and its own existence? Surely hon. Members opposite much realise that, if they organise to destroy the community, the community is perfectly entitled and perfectly justified to organise to preserve its own entity, and I hope—

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member is dealing with the coal mines being destroyed by water in stopping the pumps. Will he give us the names of the collieries destroyed in that way?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is not a point of Order, but rather a question of disorder. Why were not those mines destroyed?

Mr. BATEY: What mines?

Lieut.-Commander. BURNEY: Any of them. Why, were they not. destroyed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, why? "I If hon. Members will listen, instead of interrupting, I will tell them. The reason was that the Government used their organised forces to stop it. They sent the sailors to run the pumps. I was in the neighbourhood at the time, so I know.

Mr. HARDIE: You were not in the mines.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was not in the mines, but I knew that the
sailors worked the pumping machinery, and the hon. Member opposite, evidently, from his interruption, was one of those who wanted to destroy the whole wealth of the community.

Mr. HARDIE: That is not true. Conic outside if you want to talk like that.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Did you want your mines destroyed?

Mr. HARD! E: No, we protected them.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Why did you stop the pumps, then? How many trade union leaders got up and tried to prevent the men stopping the pumps? None of them, with the exception of one or two. One or two did, I know. That is the reason Why I hope the majority, at any rate, of this House will vote for the preservation of law and order and not for giving away with both hands any organised method of stopping the organised destruction of the life of the community.

Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the support that is given to this Bill by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). It has been suggested that there is a sinister purpose in this Bill, although many on these benches are loath to believe that the Home Secretary would introduce anything into the House of Commons with a sinister purpose, and I am inclined to think, going on the lines of the last speaker in this Debate, that this is a Bill to legalise a force which is going to be organised for the purpose of murdering workmen on strike. I think that this Special Constables Bill is a Bill to legalise the organisation of a force of Fascisti. An hon. Member opposite suggested that the only way in which some of the hon. Members opposite could be prevented from creating an illegal force of Fascisti was by the Home Secretary giving them such a force and making it legal. I think that we are going to have the creation of a force which is going to be allowed to do such things as the Fascisti have done in Italy, but in this country the hon. Members opposite are not just courageous enough to make it an illegal organisation, as was the case in Italy. They want to get the sanction of law and order for their actions. They are afraid that the force of which the
hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) was a member would deal too drastically with them. They believe that the support which the organised police would get from the people that we represent would enable them to deal so drastically with such a force as they could organise illegally that they want to get the law behind them and take shelter behind the law for this illegal action.
I have heard it suggested that the present Government is very dear to the heart of the people who are responsible for the production of the "Morning Post," and after reading this Bill I have become more and more convinced that this Government is a creation of the "Morning Post" to carry through the Fascisti policy which the "Morning Post" has been desirous of seeing introduced into this country. I hope this Bill will not become an Act. No reasons have been given by any hon. Member opposite why we should accept this Bill. In the days preceding 1914 there were often occasions when we had industrial disputes, and when temper rose high, and yet the ordinary police force was sufficient for the maintenance of order. In these days evidently the possessors of privilege in the community are not so courageous as their predecessors, and they are of opinion that the working classes have learned so much since 1914 that they are not going to take any risks, and so they produce this miserable measure for the creation of a Fascisti force.
If this Measure is passed I believe it is going to create ever so much ill-feeling in the country. I know that the people in the city of Glasgow will regard this Measure as one aimed at the working class in cities like Glasgow where the people have learned sense. They will regard it for instance as a Measure which has been put upon the Statute Book in order to allow the Government to put into operation the Measure which they are going to try and force upon the people of Scotland to give to the landlords rents that they have no right to receive. If you get this force it is going to lead to trouble instead of preventing it. Why should you not trust your Police Force? They have always been good friends to the possessors of private property in the past, and why cannot you trust them in
the days to come, because they have always looked well after your interests.
10.0 P.M.
Really, on these Benches we ought to welcome the introduction of this Measure, because the police force will be inclined to believe that the capitalist interests have no real faith in them, and they will believe that this is the beginning of an attack on their conditions of service, just as this force in the past has been an attack on the conditions of the service of the workers of the various industries in the country. Therefore, these proposals would be all to the good as far as we on this side of the House are concerned. A great many hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken with much force about the creation of bitter feelings between class and class, and some of them evidently feel very deeply on this subject. There are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who fear the creation of a class feeling amongst the community, but I suggest to them that this Measure will tend to increase class feeling. The workers are not going to be persuaded that this Measure is not a blackleg institution to protect blacklegs.
Hon. Members on this side of the House are putting the matter very gently when they say that the organised working classes will see in this Measure nothing more nor less than a. force to protect the capitalists of the country when they decide to make their attack upon the conditions of the workers and the standard of life they are now enjoying in the various industries. In the interests of maintaining a good feeling in the community, I think the Home Secretary should withdraw this Measure, and trust the police, as the Governments of the past did in the days before 1914. This Bill is an insult to the men who fought this country's battles during the great War. It is an insult to all those who went forward on the battlefield, and also to all those who served in the Navy.
By this Measure you are practically saying that you cannot trust them, and that you must have a force ready to break their heads and attack them in the name of law and order. I protest against this wretched Measure brought forward by the Home Secretary which is consistent with his policy of arresting men and putting them into prison without any charge being made against them. I know that one or two of those men have already been released. and that is why
I say this Bill is in keeping with the Policy of the Home Secretary. [Interruption.] I do not want to howl about it, and I do not think we need to howl; there are certain animals that howl, but they are not on the Labour Benches. In view of the fact that the organised Labour movement believes that this is a Measure. designed against the interests of the working classes, I appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw it. For the moment let the matter go and trust to the police who were sufficient protection in the past, and I have not the slightest doubt- that they will be able to deal with any difficulties in the future that may arise.

Mr. PONSONBY: I have listened to practically the whole course of this Debate, and have not yet discovered why this Bill is being introduced. I hope the Home Secretary, who, I believe, is going to say a few words at the conclusion of the Debate, will tell us what this Bill is for, because that is a question which has not been answered. We have had several explanations from private Members, but we have had nothing on the subject from the Government Bench. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, said that the late Government would have brought in this Measure had they continued to exist. Is that the reason why this Government is bringing it in? Is this Government so enamoured of all the old Government's Measures that it thinks it necessary to adopt them? Is that the main reason? Then we were told by an hon. Member below the Gangway that the object of this Bill was to prevent the formation of Fascisti. I cannot conceive any Measure less calculated to do that. We have already had some dispute as to the age at which these special constables are to be enrolled, and we have already managed to secure from the Government a concession anyhow to exclude the babies and get them cut out of the Bill. The veterans, however, are still in the Bill, and the men of 70 and 80 years of age can be enrolled. The point I want to emphasise is that the Government are introducing this Measure evidently contemplating that there are going to be disturbances in the future.
They admit that the original Act of t831 sufficed for all those years, but that now, after the War, they consider some special Measure is necessary. They are
frightened that the policy they are adopting is going to lead to trouble. Perhaps they are justified in these apprehensions. I am inclined to think that this policy of doing nothing is very likely to lead to trouble, but is that the reason the Government are introducing this Bill? If not, we are justified in saying that this force is being created to act in industrial disputes, and for that reason and that reason alone. The Home Secretary and, I think, the Under-Secretary, have, while my hon. Friends have been speaking, often shaken their heads when we have suggested that that is the object of the Bill, but they have not given us any reason for introducing this special Measure. We arc certainly justified in saying that this is a special force specially created for the sake of breaking strikes, and for being used in industrial disputes. We know perfectly well that no trade unionist is going to be invited to join this force. [HON. MEM3E111 "Why not.?"]

Mr. STEPHEN: Because he is not the kind of fool that you want.

Mr. PONSONBY: Because, knowing what the force is going to be used for, he is not coming forward to join the ranks of a special body of men who are going to be blacklegs and strike-breakers. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have frequently during the Debate applauded the idea that we should have a force of blacklegs and strike-breakers ready for an emergency. That is their intention, anyhow; but I want to know what the Government's intention is. Is it the Government's intention that there should be this specially created force, because it seems to me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) said just recently, you are with a vengeance inaugurating class war if you set up this special band selected from a certain class with a view to interfering only in an industrial trouble. A question was asked with regard to the cost, and the Under-Secretary said it was going to cost nothing. If it is going to cost nothing to set up this force and keep it in being it is obvious that, if you abolish the force, you will make a saving, and therefore the Government could make a considerable saving by doing away with this force or letting it die gradually by not recruiting it. The Act of 1831 is amply
sufficient for the requirements that may occur from time to time. As the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion for the rejection of this Bill in such a remarkably able speech said, in those districts where they have not employed special constables at all they have been absolutely peaceable and have not required to use them. The Under-Secretary said they would not he required to use them, but my hon. Friend emphasised that in these districts where special constables were not used there was never any trouble at all. I feel a sense of security in having the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) sitting just behind me, and I am very glad that the last arrest he made was the arrest of Government progress in that constituency, while he has done very noticeable service to-night in putting the technical points before the House, and in moving the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill_ I would ask the Home Secretary—and I repeat it, as we have all been doing and have had no answer—what is the Bill introduced for? Is it, to break strikes, as hon. Members behind him said; is it to prevent Fascisti being formed: or is it because the late Government introduced it and they think they ought to do so? i think we ought to have an answer to those questions.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Bill which has been under discussion must, I think on all hands, be recognised as a most unfortunate and ill-advised Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] For reasons that I will give, and some of which I hope will commend themselves to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). I was going to add that this Second Reading has given rise to a discussion on which the Government have no reason to congratulate themselves. The first reason I have for saying that it is an unfortunate and ill-advised Bill is in relation to its form, and in that respect I have some considerations to put before the House which I think will commend themselves to the right hon. Baronet. The Bill in its first Clause begins by a reference to the Special Constables Act, 1914—a very bad piece of war emergency legislation. I think it is generally admitted, and no hon. Member has put the case against legislation by reference better than the right hon.
Baronet, that legislation by reference is bad, but that legislation by reference to a bad emergency Act drafted in a way which would only be accepted during a war is surely the most vicious kind of legislation by reference. Let me remind the House of what the Special Constables Act, 1914, did. It had practically a single Clause empowering the Home Secretary to make Regulations for a force of special constables. In other words, Parliament divested itself entirely of its duties in legislating for the constitution of this force, and left its constitution to be decided purely by administrative decree. While that was admissible under the conditions then existing, the War was not a month old, there was something of a scare in the country, and the House was inclined to accept anything from the Government and give any powers that were asked for to it, four years after the War Parliament has no right to give similar autocratic powers to any Government or Government Department.
I would like to put this consideration to hon. Members on the other side of the House. They are in power to-day. They have the right of making the regulations and can constitute their Fascisti or their White Guard, as they choose, by the regulations they make. But what if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) and his friends are on the Front Bench opposite in two years' time, and they have the power to make regulations—[An HON. MEMBER: "We shall make them "]—and they can prescribe the special constabulary they want? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not.?" Will you he pleased at that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly."] Well, I would not. The view I take—and surely hon. Members opposite will agree with me—is that if we are going to have a special constabulary in this country, it must be constituted by legislation; and not simply by empowering Government Departments to make regulations thereon. I cannot understand any hon. Member opposite objecting to that contention. It is no excuse to say that this was a matter that was hatched under the Coalition. It is a fair sample of Coalition legislation. It is the kind of Bill that would have been passed in the last Parliament, but it is not a good enough Bill for this Parliament, and it is not the kind of Bill that is going to pass this House. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, who
were returned to support a different Government with different methods, and to take up the ordinary constitutional methods of legislation of this country, are adopting the cast-off clothing of the Coalition, for that is what it amounts to. {Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): The hon. Member with his experience and acumen, will see that his remarks are not relevant.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is surely relevant to point out this, and I must say it is the first time I have ever heard an hon. Member called to order in this House for showing the other side that they were in the wrong. I say it was one of the functions for which this House was returned—to go back and to revive the ordinary constitutional methods of legislation here. This is a Bill in which these methods are abandoned. It confers autocratic powers upon a Government Department in relation to a new defence force, and I say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not entitled to confer that power upon any Government. To-day it is a Government to their mind; to-morrow it may be a very different Government, and I suggest to them, in these circumstances, they are doing a very bad piece of work from their own point of view when they are placing such powers in the hands of a Government whose aims may be absolutely disagreeable to them.
That is the first point. I believe it is a matter of substance, and I think, under these circumstances, the Government should consider the matter again. It is worth while considering it. It is a serious matter, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite view with such levity what is a sound constitutional point. The older Members opposite will agree with me that this legislation would never have been tolerated before the War by either party in this House. I always understood that in pre-War days the British constitution had, as it were, created the finest precedents in legislative practice that had been created by any legislative assembly in the world, and it should surely be our pride to maintain those practices and precedents which have been of such advantage to the country in the past. It is because this Bill is a departure from these things that we oppose it. It is true that we tolerated it in war times, and
under war conditions, simply because it was a temporary Measure. But it is a departure which we have no right to tolerate now, and which this House, now that it has the opportunity, should take that opportunity of rejecting.
Let us come to the substance of this matter. There has been a very remarkable contrast between the speeches from the front and back benches opposite. The front bench case has been an apologetic case—it is a very little one. There is nothing in it! Nothing at all! The Bill is mild and inoffensive, and a Measure that nobody could ever object to, and, in fact, the Home Secretary is the very man to be selected for a purpose of this kind. He is simple and innocent. He does not assume the airs of statesmanship that, some of his colleagues adopt, and he is, therefore, more popular with the House. While we know that they are not so clever as they believe themselves to be, we believe that he is cleverer than he looks. The back bench case is quite a different case. It is only by dealing with that case that we arrive at the real motives and objects that have given the, Measure so enthusiastic a welcome. Those who speak from the benches behind the Minister speak of a new spirit in the country. They say that the people are more unruly than they used to be, more given to riot and die-order; that there are wilder trade union leaders than in the past, and that therefore we must have other methods and stronger methods to suppress unfortunate incidents.
Is that the case for the Government? Does the Home Secretary believe that? He has not said so in his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, nor has the Under-Secretary said anything to that effect. If the case made by hon. Members behind the Minister be true, then I agree that from their point of view there is a case for the Bill, but so far as the Government is concerned, up to the present there has been no case made by the Government. If our people are as law abiding as before the War, if there is no more tendency to riot and disorder, then there is no need for this special force. From 1831 to 1914 there was no special provision for a force of this kind, though by the Act of 1831 they could be enrolled in special emergencies. They were enrolled, I think, at the time of the Chartist
agitation, but from that time until 1914, so far as I recollect, we had no need for special constables. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] There might be an isolated case, but they were purely emergency cases.

Mr. STEPHEN: To deal with Carson!

Mr. PRINGLE: If, then, it was only in such cases, why should there be a permanent organisation? There is no case under these circumstances for a special organisation. When we come to what is in the minds of those who are promoting this Bill, we find references to the railway strike of 1919. We remember all that occurred then. We remember the design for a defence force at that time! We remember also the statement made that there was an anarchist conspiracy! It was an extraordinary situation. Some of us, who were not in the House in those days, could not understand why the anarchist conspiracy was never discussed in this House. [An HON. MEMBER,: "You were not here! "] That was one reason why it was not discussed, but I am surprised that the Labour party did not discuss it. There were 60 of them here then, and that statement was a direct attack on the Labour party. I could never understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) did not raise the matter with the late Prime Minister. Then we had a reference to the Council of Action. That was another thing that was going to bring the pillars of society down; but do hon. Gentlemen really believe that? It was the greatest hoax that was ever put up.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Can the hon. Member connect the Council of Action with special constables?

Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, Sir. The existence of the Council of Action was put forward as a reason for this Bill, and the argument was accepted as being perfectly in order, so it is surely order, when one is examining the Bill, and the arguments in its favour, to point out how hollow such an argument is. I was merely pointing out that the Council of Action, by its very constitution, contained members whose presence gave an assurance to the Government of the day that nothing serious could happen. Nothing did happen, nor is anything likely to happen if only in this country we proceed on the old lines in dealing
with our legislation, if we legislate according to the established practice of this House. If, in dealing with every Bill that comes to the house, we place its objects and its provisions fully and clearly before Parliament arid the country and if, after going through the ordinary processes of debate and discussion, such Bills ultimately find their way to the Statute Book, that is the sound constitutional method of procedure. But if you place in the hands of the Executive vague and ill-defined powers such as are contained in this Bill, and if, in doing that, you get a different reason given from the Front Bench from that which is given from the Back Bench, you thereby create suspicion that the objects which the Government are avowing are not the real objects, that what the Government is concerned with is not simply the preservation of law and order in this country, but the creation of a force which will be used for other needs and other purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?" and "Strike-breaking! "] Any hon. Member who has listened to the course of this discussion ought by this time to be perfectly familiar with the fears and suspicions which this Bill has aroused. One has only to note the exclamation with which the interruption from the other side has past been received, that it is to be used for strike-breaking, for the purposes of some form of class warfare. Surely it is a most unfortunate thing that any Government should have introduced such a Bill as gives rise to such suspicions, and that in discussion in this House those suspicions should have had to he expressed by responsible Members of this House—because those suspicions have not been put forward from irresponsible quarters: they have been put before the House by hon. Members speaking with a sense of responsibility, and speaking also with a sincere desire to avert the risks they foresee. I hope the Home Secretary will yet reconsider the decision to press this Bill. The Government have already a heavy enough programme for the present Session. They have many problems yet awaiting solution. On some of them they have not yet made up their minds. On some topics on which they will have to legislate before 30th June they do not know what they are going to do, yet they are introducing this trumpery and mischievous Measure to take up the time
of the House and its Committees. It will go to a Committee, which will bring Members here at 11 and keep them sitting four hours a clay for several days. In the present state of public business, unless for an object which is altogether essential and desirable in the public interest, the Government are not entitled to do that. They have other things far more important in the interest of the country, and, in these circumstances, I could reinforce the appeals which have been made to them from above, the Gangway to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Two or three points have been raised which I should to refer to, and I hope it is not impossible to dispel some amazing suspicions in the minds of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member who spoke last condemned it because it was to continue the provisions made by what he described as the Coalition Government. He seems to forget that it was the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) that passed the Special Constables Act, and therefore any blame he has to attach to that Measure, which he described as so pernicious, should be addressed to his own leader.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is unintentionally misrepresenting me. I said he is cleverer than he looks. I made it perfectly clear that the original Act was an emergency Act passed in the first month of the War. I condemned this Bill as taken over from the Coalition Government, and hearing the marks of Coalition legislation, in that it continued an emergency Bill.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The House will remember that the hon. Member said it was a very bad Measure. That is all I need to say. He spoke of the great apprehensions the Bill had aroused in the minds of hon. Members, and it apparently has, but in his own mind the apprehension that looms largely seemed to me to be the apprehension that when hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite changed places with us here they might use this Bill in some way unsatisfactory to him. I have no such apprehension. I think they would be only too glad to have this Act, when it is passed, to help them if any emergency should arise. [An HON. MEMBER: "You will be the
first to go! "] if I should fail in my duty in keeping order, I should deserve to be the first to go. Hon. Members have said this is panic legislation. I have been accused of many things in my time, but this is the first time I have had that accusation brought against me. Let us see whether it is panic legislation. Is it panic legislation to take up a Bill which has been previously prepared by another Government, and which that Government had intended to produce? Is it panic legislation to make use of a force on which no single Member of the House has attempted to offer any criticism through the whole course of the Debate, which has admittedly done good work, rather than some newly recruited force with no experience and no knowledge of the subject? If that is panic legislation, then I do not know what is panic legislation. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) asked me whether I thought there was more likelihood of violence now than before the War. I have no thought of that kind in my mind. I have no particular reason to suspect any violence now. Of course, we have a certain amount of violent speeches from many people whose bark is worse than their bite. I have no reason to suspect any violence now, but that, is not the reason why this Measure is being introduced. It has been said that the Bill is an anti-Labour Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes' "1 It is an anti-disorder Measure. If Labour wishes to identify itself with disorder, then there might be some force in that argument. It is said to be a strike-breaking Measure. Some strikes are perfectly orderly, but some are not. If violence is introduced into a strike, and if violence is offered to the citizens of this country in the course of a strike, that is disorder, and for that kind of strike I frankly admit that this or any other Measure for calling out special constables would be necessary.

Mr. AMMON: This is provoking disorder.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Why should it be provoking disorder to continue a force which has been in existence up to now and which not one hon. Member opposite has ventured to say has done anything but excellent work? [HON. MEMBERS: "During the War."] And since the War. [HON'. MEMBERS: "It is not operative.."]
It will not be operative now except in an emergency. The force will only he operative if the constabulary want assistance. If they want auxiliaries to help them, this force will be called up. They will be under the direction of the constabulary, and will be given duties which the constabulary think are suitable for them. The whole question is very simple, although it has been magnified by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There are a good many small points which I do not need to answer. There is the question of the age limit for recruiting. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) spoke about the Scottish age limit being abolished. Nobody suggests that the age limit was likely to be extended on the lower side in Scotland. If it is thought that there is any danger of that, I am willing to agree that the age should not go below 20 in Scotland. The lion. Member also spoke about veterans over the age of 50. That happens to fit in with his own age. It would then be possible that he would be able to come in, and we should be very glad to recruit him if he so wished. Instead of being a useless veteran, he would be one of the most active members of the force.
There may come a time, as there have been times in the past, when the assistance of the citizen may be required to reinforce the existing constabulary of the country. If ever an emergency arose and this Bill were not passed the police would have to be reinforced by the enlistment of special constables who would have no experience or by the military. The other alternative is to do what is proposed in the Bill, and, if there is an emergency, to use the men who are all tried and experienced, who have all had instruction, who had served in this force for a considerable time and who would be altogether a much more satisfactory force than a force suddenly called into existence in an emergency, and perhaps collected at the street corners of our towns. Can anybody have the face to say that the present constabulary have been anything but an admirable and excellent force? Therefore I believe that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill because they do not want to scrap entirely an organisation which has been of the greatest value and which I believe will greatest be of the greatest value in the future
should any emergency arise and should it be necessary to reinforce the existing police force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] What a lamentable gulf there is between the sober and sagacious Front Bench and the honest outspoken back Benches opposite, who honestly and outspokenly realise what this Measure means. The Front Bench has never heard of White Guards or Fascisti or Mussolini or dreamt of reading the "Morning Post." The home Secretary in this Debate is innocence personified. He is amazed at the opposition to his Bill. Ho talks of the amazing suspicions of hon. Members on this side. I wonder why he should be amazed, because even in the wilds of Shropshire he must have awakened to the fact that the Conservative party is changing, and has changed considerably in the last year. The old constitutional party in this country has been forgotten since Mussolini came into his own. Who so eloquent as the Home Secretary on constitutional practice, "slowly broadening down from precedent to precedent "? Who so eloquent on the virtues of orthodox constitutional development as the constitutional party opposite, as long as they thought they could continue to boss this country for ever? But now, with the vision before them of the proletariat actually proposing to take the reins of government into its hands, they have to take stock of their position in exactly the same way as the same people have taken stock of their position in Hungary, in Bavaria, in Germany, in Italy and in Spain. Therefore we have this further addition to the Citizen Defence Force. I remember that it was before the War that the Citizen Defence Force first came into being, with his Grace the Duke of Abercorn as president and a son of Mrs. Humphrey Ward as one of the whippersin. They had their meeting in the Crystal Palace, and decided to break the strikes. They enrolled everyone who would come along—they even specified honest working men—in order that when next the wicked working man rose up in his might and attempted to destroy civilisation—according to the "Morning Post" he is trying to do it about every week-end—they might be armed at every point to resist red revolution. It
fizzled out then, because, of course, there was no Government backing behind it. But now there is a chance; they can get Government backing, through the amazing innocence of the Home Secretary, and with the apt and unanimous approval of the benches behind him.
Let us realise what it is. I think we have killed this Bill to-clay. The Government place some value on their time and I do not think they will pursue the matter much further. I am sorry, in some ways, that. the Bill has been killed. I can see great use in this Measure. If we came into power, so far as the special constables are concerned, following the policy lately advocated by Lord Fisher, we would sack the lot and fill up the ranks of our special constables with people for whom there would be more need in looking after the counter-revolutionaries opposite. Curragh mutiny would have its imitators, no doubt, in the Navy, and, if the new Labour Government really attempted to get anything done, we should be faced with direct action from the benches opposite far more quickly than we are likely to have direct action from the working men of this country, That has been proved over and over again on the Continent. Now that we see this amazing metamorphosis in the attitude of the constitutional party, it is, perhaps, as well that we should realise that Labour in power may have as stiff a fight to preserve order against reaction as ever reaction can have in preserving order against people rightly struggling to be free. [Interruption.] I think hon. Members opposite, and perhaps on this side, do not realise what this blackleg White Guard is really going to be. This new organisation is, as, indeed, has been pretty obvious, the thin end of class warfare. No one who goes about in this country now, and who listens to the talk —it may be in railway trains—no one who listens to the average conversation of the average middle-class, or even upper-class, personage, can be oblivious to the fact that the abuse of the enemy in the War has been wiped out, and that, instead. the abuse of the working class has taken its place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] abuse of their greediness, their failure ever to do an honest day's work; their grasping desire—

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" "Wedgwood!" and [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member rises on a point of Order, I am bound to hear him.

Mr. HOHLER: It is on a point of Order. I am entitled to be heard. The point of Order to which I rose, was how far the speech of the hon. and gallant Member was relevant to the Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to adumbrate a connection between his argument- and the Bill, and I was waiting for him to make it substantial.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was endeavouring to explain, when I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member, that the Bill, as it stands at present, is an attempt to resuscitate, in the shape of the special constabulary, a force which is intended—as the entire Back Benches opposite admit, though the Front Bench will not admit—to be used in cases of strikes, in order, not only to suppress violence, but also to take the place of those strikers who are engaged in operations of national necessity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" I wish that "No!" had come from the Front Bench, instead of from the Back Benches. Let us imagine, if that be so, whether the sort of people from whom the force is to be recruited is the sort of people who will maintain an unbiassed, non-party attitude, toward the dispute in question. I maintain that this force obviously will rule out at once all trade unionists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. "] Any trade unionist who joins this force will have to understand that under the oath which he takes he may be compelled to blackleg his own trade union. Therefore, no trade unionist will voluntarily join this force. It must, therefore, be recruited just precisely from those classes who, at the present time, are most vocal in their denunciations of the working classes, particularly in these times when they are driven to strike or are locked out by the employers. Is it likely to conduce to amicable relations between the two parties and to tend to general decent behaviour in the country as a whole, if the workers realise that you have here a new defence force composed of people who dislike them, similar to those
people who are being used as blacklegs in Norfolk to-day? They have to understand that this force is backed up by the Government, armed by the Government, to be used by the Government, not merely to prevent riot but actually to do the work of strike breaking in an emergency. There is one other hope to be gathered from this Bill. I understand from the Home Secretary that, at least, we will gain one thing from this Measure, if it becomes law— that this new weapon will be used as an alternative to the weapon used at the present time. At the present time, when civil disturbance arises from a strike or lock-out, the ordinary resource of the Government is to call out troops as at Featherstone or Tonypandy. Is the special constabulary to take the place of the troops? If we can be assured that, in future, special constables will be used in lieu of troops there may he something to be said for the Measure.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I said was, if we had no special constabulary, the only other way of assisting the police would be by calling out the military: therefore the existence of the special constabulary would defer the moment. when the military would have to be called out.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We do not get much benefit out of that. It is not an alternative, it is an addition. Even then we do not get any advantage. I would

point out to the Home Secretary that. if he is going to press this Bill, he is going to be up against the determined opposition, not of the Labour party alone, but of all people who love liberty and constitutionalism. The right hon. Gentleman must read his paper; he must understand that at the present time, in spite of the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who protested that this was the Government's method of avoiding Fascism, in the whole of the Conservative Press the cure for the social evil invented in Italy is being put forward day by day, in issue after issue, as the only cure of our social unrest in this country also. He must realise that we on this side of the House, not of one party but of all parties, are determined we will never have in this country any sort of attempt to establish the rule of Fascism or White Guards. This Measure is suspected, and, I think, rightly suspected, of being a move in that direction, and therefore in the interests of peaceful development, as well as the interests of his own party, I would urge him to withdraw this Bill and let us get on to business.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question he now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 126.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Ednam, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Button, H. S.
Ellis, R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Baird. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cautley, Henry Strother
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicister, E.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Falcon, Captain Michael


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Churchman. Sir Arthur
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Banks, Mitchell
Clarry, Reginald George
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Clayton, G. C.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Foreman, Sir Henry


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier-Walker, L.


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Furness, G. J.


Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Colfox. Major Wm. Phillips
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Garland, C. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Cope. Major William
Gates, Percy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bruford, R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bruton, Sir James
Davidson. J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstaad)
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Halstead, Major D.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dawson. Sir Philin
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Maddocks, Henry
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Harrison, F. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P, (Chertsey)


Harvey, Major S. E.
Manville, Edward
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Hawke, John Anthony
Margesson, H. D. R.
Rodgerson, Captain J. E.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C, K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Hennessy, Major J. B. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sandon, Lord


Hiley. Sir Ernest
Morris, Harold
Shepperson, E. W.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Skelton, A. N.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Murchison, C. K.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Creydon, South)


Hohter, Gerald Fitzroy
Nail, Major Joseph
Sparkes, H. W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley)
Stanley, Lord


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Houlton, John Plowright
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hudson, Capt. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hume, G. H.
Paget, T G.
Sutcliffe, T.


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Pennefather, De Fonblangue
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamslow, E.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tubbs, S. W.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Perring, William George
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Philipson, H. H.
Wallace, Captain E.


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Watts. Dr. T. (Man!, Withington)


Lamt, J. Q.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wells. S. R.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Raine, W.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Leigh Sir John (Clapham)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Winterton, Earl


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
wise, Frederick


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lorden, John William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lorimer, H. D.
Remer, J. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lumley, L, R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reynolds, W. G. W.



McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rhodes. Lieut.-Col. J. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
M'Entec, V. L.


Amman, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McLaren, Andrew


Attlee, C. R.
Groves, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Barker, G. (Manmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Barnes, A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Millar, J. D.


Bonwick, A.
Hancock, John George
Morel, E. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Briant, Frank
Hardie, George D.
Murnin, H.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Brotherton, J.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Nichol, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Patrick
O'Grady, Captain James


Buckle, J.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Oliver, George Harold


Burgess, S.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Paling, W.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cairns, John
Herriotts, J.
Phillipps, Vivian


Cape, Thomas
Hillary, A. E.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Chapple, W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hodge, Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Riley, Ben


Collison, Levi
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertcwn)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Royce, William stapleton


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Saklatvala, S.


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Foot, Isaac
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Gosling, Harry
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Snowdon. Philip


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Linfield, F. C.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lowth, T.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell




Sullivan, J.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wright, W.


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, Wast)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Trevelyan, C. P.
Whiteley, W.



Warne, G. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)



Webb, Sidney

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Furness, G. J.
Molson, Major John Eladale


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick W.
Garland, C. S.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Baird Rt. Hon St: John Lawrence
Gates, Percy
Morris, Harold


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff. Sir R. Park
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Murchison, C. K.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nail, Major Joseph


Banks, Mitchell
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newman, Colonel J- R. P. (Finchley)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon William


Brass, Captain W.
Harrison, F. C.
Paget, T. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bruford, R.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Philipson, Hilton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hewett. Sir J. P.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Raine, W.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Button, H. S
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hood, Sir Joseph
Remer, J. R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Houfton, John Plowright
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Churchman. Sir Arthur
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson. Capt. A.
Robertson. J. D. (Islington, W.)


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, G H.
Rodgerson, Captain J. E.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Ma for Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cope, Major William
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff South)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandon, Lord


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shepperson. E. W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Skelton. A. N.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Curzon, Captain viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sparkes, H. W.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lorden, John William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ednam. Viscount
Lorimer, H. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark):
Lumley, L. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super>Mare)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sutcliffe, T.


Erskine-Bolst. Captain C.
Maddocks, Henry
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Manville, Edward
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Margesson, H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tubbs, S. W.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardraw
Turton, Edmund Russborough

The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 122.

Wallace, Captain E.
Winterton, Earl
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wise, Frederick



Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


White, Col. G. D (Southport)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Attlee, C. R.
Hancock, John George
Paling, W.


Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harbord, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hartshorn, Vernon
Potts, John S.


Bonwick, A.
Hastings, Patrick
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)


Briant, Frank
Hemmerde, E. G.
Riley, Ben


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ritson, J.


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Buckle, J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Saklatvala, S.


Burgess, S.
Jonkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Calms, John
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simpson, J. Hope


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snell, Harry


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snowden, Philip


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collison, Levi
Lansbury, George
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, w.
Sullivan, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lee, F.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Ede, James Chuter
Linfield, F. C.
Warne, G. H.


Emiyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacDonald, 1. R. (Aberavon)
watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
M'Entee, V. L.
Webb, Sidney


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Middleton, G.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan]
Millar, J. D.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morel, E. D.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Nichol, Robert

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. "—[Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.]

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mir. SEXTON: (seated and covered)
I wish to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that a Member of

the House voted in both Lobbies, and to ask what record will be given of that Member's vote?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If an hon. Member votes in both Lobbies, the one vote cancels the other, and no result, as far as the Division is concerned, can ensue.

The House divided: Ayes, 122, Noes, 205.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (wednesbury)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Simpson, J. Hope


Harbord, Arthur
March, S.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Handle, George D.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Snell, Harry


Hartshorn, Vernon
Maxton, James
Snowden, Philip


Hastings, Patrick
Middleton, G.
Sparkes, H. W.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Millar, J. D.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Morel, E. D.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Morrison, H. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Herriotts, J.
Murnin. H.
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, G. H.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Nichol, Robert
Trevelyan, C. P.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
O'Grady, Captain James
Warne, G. H.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertownj
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Webb, Sidney


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Ponsonby, Arthur
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Lansbury, George
Pringle, W. M. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Leach, W.
Riley, Ben
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Linfield. F. C.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)



Lowth, T.
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacDonald. J. R. (Aberavon)
Saklatvala, S.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


M'Entee, V. L.
Sexton, James





NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ednam, Viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Ellis, R. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine-Eolst, Captain C.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Banks, Mitchell
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lamb, J. Q.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blundell, F. N.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lorden, John William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lorimer, H. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Furness, G. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Garland, C. S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Goff, Sir R. Park
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maddocks, Henry


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Manville, Edward


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough. E.)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Bruford, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mason. Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Bruton. Sir James
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Buckingham, Sir H.
Halstead, Major D.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hancock, John George
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Harrison, F. C.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Button, H. S.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Morris, Harold


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Murchison, C. K.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nail, Major Joseph


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nesbitt. Robert C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Clarry. Reginald George
Herbert, s. (Scarborough)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clayton, G. C.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Paget, T. G.


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hopkins, John W. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Houfton, John Plowright
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Perring, William George


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Philipson, H. H.


Davidson, J C. c.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hume, G. H.
Raine, W.




Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sandon, Lord
Tubas, S. W.


Remer, J. R.
Shepperson, E. W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Rentoul, G. S.
Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain E.


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wells, S. R.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Winterton, Earl


Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wise, Frederick


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wolmer, Viscount


Ruglles-Brise, Major E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sutcliffe, T.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Russell, William (Bolton)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.



Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. LANSBURY: I desire to move the rejection of the Bill. I do so because it is primarily concerned with the perpetuation of an Army and an Air Force in the country, and I wish to oppose the establishment of both, and I think I shall be able to show some reasons for that. For centuries armies and navies have been established in the world for the purpose of preserving peace. We are continually told, and we were told before the last War, that to be thoroughly prepared for war was the greatest guarantee that peace would ensue. This country had the biggest Navy—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I gather that the hon. Member is wishing to move that there should not be an Army in this country at all. But it has been decided by a Vote of this House that so many men and so much money on account shall be granted to His Majesty, and that has been confirmed by the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only question before the House on this Bill is whether the Army shall be a disciplined force, or a force without discipline.

Mr. LANSBURY: If I am to choose whether I am to argue for no Army at all, or for an Army without discipline, then I will argue for an Army without discipline as the lesser of two evils, and then, as I think Mr. Speaker Lowther once said, it would be no Army at all. If, as he ruled, it would be in order
thus to argue, I propose to do so this evening. The Army as at present constituted is a disciplined body. It is disciplined mainly by fear. Everyone who knows anything about the Army, either from the inside or from the outside, is perfectly aware that the one thing which holds it together, and makes men submit to the iron discipline, is the fear of death. During times of war it is the death penalty that keeps men up to the scratch, so to speak, to endure all that they have to endure during the hell of war; arid, further, the Army is recruited also by economic fear, fear of men's livelihood. I think an Army is futile, anyhow the purposes of an Army are futile, and I think, further, that, supposing a country is in need of defence, the people who should defend it are those who really love it so much that they feel they are ready to give their lives for it, and I think the armies as at present constituted are armies that are built up (me fear and are kept in being through fear. Then I think, instead of having an Army of the age that we have it nose, the Army should be a much older one.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member infringing your riding, that there cannot be any question as to whether or not we ought to have an Army? is he not now saying that if there was no discipline there would not he any Army, and is that not technically art argument which results in there being no Army at all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was waiting for the hon. Member to connect his argument with my ruling. I was giving him a certain measure or time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to you, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet is not quite right in his submission? Are we not now discussing
the measure of discipline to be allowed in the Army and the means for ensuring it, and is not that quite in order? It does not raise the question of the existence of the Army.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Frequent rulings have been given that any such matters of detail must be reserved for Committee. The question on Second Reading is not whether the present discipline of the Army is the most perfect discipline or whether there should be an Army. The question is whether, as there is an Army, that Army should he a disciplined or an undisciplined force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we understand why it is that on this particular Bill the debate on the Second Reading is so circumscribed? In the case of any other Bill anything in the Bill is open to discussion on the Second Reading. You have alluded to previous rulings. On what grounds have they been given? Is it not because previously it has always been accepted that an Army should be in existence and that it should be disciplined? Is it not possible, now that hostility to that position is taken up, that we should get back to the normal position of being entitled to discuss on the Army (Annual) Bill everything that is in the Army (Annual) Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before you reply to that, Sir, being almost a new Member again, not having been here for so many years, I did not feel quite qualified to raise the question on the point of Order. I have studied, as far as I can, the rules here given us to guide us as to what we may or may not do, and I find on page 146 that on the Second Reading of a Bill a Member may do so and so, and I am told the Second Reading stage of a Bill is the proper stage for discussing the principle of the Bill as distinguished from its details, and an argument which at this stage enters into the details of a Bill further than is necessary to explain its principle will be stopped as irregular. I should like to ask, can the Speaker of this House, by giving a decision, override the printed rules of this House? Then I should like to call your attention to what appears in May's "Parliamentary Practice"—
A complete code of military law was formerly re-enacted by each sessional Mutiny Bill, but in the year 1879 this legislative
necessity was obviated and a permanent Act was passed for the discipline and regulation of the Army, though to secure the right of Parliament "—
The rights of Parliament are vested in us individually and collectively, and what is the privilege of Parliament is the privilege of an individual Member—
 though to secure the right of Parliament to give or withhold its assent to a standing Army the permanent Act is inoperative unless it be put in force by an Annual Act, to which under established constitutional usage only twelve months' duration is given. By this limitation, the Commons. in addition to their control over the number of the naval and military forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated to their support, reserve to themselves the power of determining whether a standing Army shall he kept on foot. On the Second or Third Reading of an Army (Annual) Bill, debate on the general purposes of the Army and the policy by which it is administered, the enforcement of the existing Army Regulations, or of the conduct of troops in war is out of order.
The first part of this statement by Sir Erskine May quite definitely says that Parliament, by compelling us to come year after year to this House with a smaller Bill in order to make the bigger Act operative has reserved to individual Members and to Parliament collectively the right on this occasion of saying whether or not it will have a standing Army.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has shown that he is not quite so inexperienced in arguing this question as in his modesty he has led the House to suppose. I have to say in reply, that there is an unwritten as well as a written volume and body of rulings whereby the procedure of this House is governed. When I say unwritten, I mean that it is not expressed in any Standing Order but, as I presume is the case in common law, by a number of previous decisions.. On this point it has been made perfectly clear that neither the existence of the Army nor its existing administration, can be called into question on the Second Reading of this Bill. I think hon. Members fail to note the distinction between the question whether there should be an Army, which is decided in the first place in Committee of Supply and confirmed by the Consolidated Fund Bill and ultimately by the Appropriation Bill, and the question whether the Army should be a disciplined force. The House has already decided that there should be an
Army. By this Bill it provides for its discipline and by a long series of rulings details of that discipline must be discussed on the Committee stage.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am afraid that I must ask if you will kindly tell me when the point that I have endeavoured to raise was decided by the Speaker. I have gone through the rulings on this question, and if I have missed one, I am perfectly willing to try and make my speech on the other aspect of the question. There are lots of rulings to say that we may not discuss discipline on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that we may not discuss the kind of discipline; but there is no ruling dealing with what Erskine May lays down as the safeguard which this Bill gives to Parliament, of saying whether or not it will have a standing Army. So far as my knowledge and investigation goes, there has never been any ruling given on that point, and I think it ought to he given to-night.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The ruling is to be found, by implication, at any rate, in the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther, to which the hon. Member referred. But apart from that, the House has already this Session confirmed the existence of an Army, by granting to His Majesty a certain number of men and a certain amount of money to maintain those men. That is provisionally confirmed by one Act of Parliament, and it will in due course be confirmed again by the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session. If it were possible now to review that decision, it would completely stultify the former decision of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: We are entitled, I take it, to divide against this Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You are.

Mr. LANSBURY: If we can get a majority, we can upset everything which we did a fortnight ago in reference to men and money.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If this Bill were defeated, His Majesty would still be entitled to the services of a certain number of men and to the money to maintain them, but there would he no power, except that, I presume, of persuasion, to maintain discipline over the forces.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are you quite correct in saying—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Order!"]—that we have actually voted the money for the Army? Is it not a fact that we have only passed the Committee stage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Have we passed the Report stage, too? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes! "]

Mr. LANSBURY: It may be true that we have voted the money and the men, but am I not right in saying that if this Bill by any accident were not passed, none of that would become operative? [HON. MEMBERS "No! "] Sir Erskine May says that that is so, and he is a greater authority than anyone on that side or this side of the House. It would be wise for you to allow me to move the Adjournment of the House. This is a Constitutional point that ought to be settled. if I am entitled to vote against a Measure, I am entitled in this House to give reasons why I vote against the Measure. We are not to be governed by unwritten rules in a matter of this kind. I can understand unwritten rules in regard to the courtesies and amenities of this place, but it is a most extraordinary position to take up to say that unwritten rules are to override the written rules of this House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not my business to justify the traditional procedure of this House. It is my business to enforce it. I must ask the hon. Member if he has any further observations to make, to make them in accordance with the ruling which I have given.

Mr. LANSBURY: That may be right, but I do not think that even you, Sir, ought to talk of tradition in this matter. It is not a matter of tradition. It is quite a recent innovation in the arrangements of this House. Mr. Speaker Lowther is not a traditional Speaker. He was the predecessor of the present Speaker in that Chair. This is something, apparently, which has grown up. Formerly there was a Mutiny Bill. It came forward year after year. In order to expedite business—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wished to make a protest against the existence of a standing army, his opportunity was on the Committee stage and the Report stage of Vote A of the Army Estimates. The question was then settled, as far as this Session is concerned.

Mr. LANSBURY: You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, continually say that one thing,
and I continually put to you the fact that, according to the rules of the House, when a Bill comes up for Second Reading, we are entitled to discuss the principle of the Bill. I am told now that, because of custom, I am not allowed to do so. I have a great respect for some custom, but I have no respect for custom that overrules the law. The rules of this House say that you can discuss the principles of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making an attack on the settled procedure of this House. That would not be in order. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question whether or not there should be

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Patrick
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pringle, W. M, R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Ritson, J.


Bread, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Buckle, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simpson, J. Hope


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snell. Harry


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sullivan, J.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Foot, Isaac
Linfield, F. C.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McLaren, Andrew
White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.)


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Whitetey, w.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Nichol, Robert



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Harbord, Arthur






NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Button, H. S.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Cam. Bolton M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Furness. G. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Garland, C. S.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Clayton, G. C.
Goff. Sir R. Park


Banks, Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Barnston, Ma)or Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Halstead, Major D.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cory, sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hawke, John Anthony


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon. Captain Viscount
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brown, J. w. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Du Pre. Colonel William Baring
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bruford, R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Bruton, Sir James
Ednam, Viscount
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Ellis, R. G.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

discipline in the Army; otherwise I shall have, to request him to resume his seat.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I move the Adjournment of the House? This is so important a matter that the House ought to take time to discuss it, but not at this late hour.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to move the Adjournment of the Debate?

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. NEWBOLD: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 73 Noes, 155.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Colonel I. R. P. (Finchley)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Houfton, John Plowright
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sandon, Lord


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shepperson, E. W.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C, K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Skelton, A. N.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Parker, Owen (Kottering)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hume, G. H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sparkes, H. W.


Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis
Penny, Frederick George
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lt.-Col. w. H.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perring, William George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement
Philipson, Hilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Lamb, J. Q.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sutcliffe, T.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Raine, W.
Sykes, Major-Gen, sir Frederick H.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lorimer, H. D.
Remer, J, R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lumley, L. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Manville, Edward
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Winterton, Earl


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Wise, Frederick


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.



Morden, Col. W. Grant
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Colonel Gibbs and Captain King.


Nail, Major Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to explain to the House—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I would remind the hon. Member that his speech on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate does not, entitle him to speak again on the Main Question.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like, for one moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I only rose to say, Captain FitzR.oy, that I Was not going to argue the proposition, but to reserve what it had to say.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. LANSBURY: That is all I wanted to do. I wished to say that I was not attempting to try to make a speech for an undisciplined army. I wanted to make a speech against any army, any air force, or any fighting force at all, I hope, before the Session is through, to find another opportunity of doing so. I do not take back at all anything I have said as to my right to discuss it now, but as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has decided against me, I must submit to his ruling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Under-Secretary for War moved the Second Reading of this Bill by a slight inclination of his head. I must say that I was very disappointed. I had hoped to hear him give us a few reasons for the changes in the Army Act which are en-
shrined in this quite considerable Bill. As he omitted that, I think I am in order in asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for an explanation on one or two points—

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is not that contravening the ruling which was given in April, 1914, by Mr. Speaker Lowther? This is his ruling:
 The general purposes and the policy which administers the general purposes of the Army could not be discussed on this Bill. That is a matter of administration which must be discussed upon a suitable Army Estimate. Whether it be the Army Council or any particular point which any hon. Member wishes to raise, it is a matter of administration. This simply continues to enact military low which governs the Army.
That being so, the hon. and gallant Member cannot raise the point which he has just endeavoured to make.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the point of Order. I think I am entitled to say a word, because the right hon. Baronet is a little previous. He did not wait to hear what I was going to say. It has just been ruled by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that the question of whether we should have a disciplined Army is in Order. That main question I do not propose to discuss, but I think I am in order in referring to the question of discipline in the Army in reference to Section 14, and in asking, quite briefly, for some explanation of this Section, which deals with that very point, which we are in order in discussing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It ought not to be necessary to explain to the House that the object of this Bill is to give legal authority to the military law which governs the discipline in the Army for a further 12 months. That military law, which governs the discipline of the Army, it is not in order to discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill.

12 M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Thank you, Sir. At first sight it might not appear necessary to explain Clause 14, until one looks more closely into it. I put it to you, Sir, and to the Under-Secretary, that there is a new principle raised here altogether. We have had, in this Army Bill on previous occasions, no question raised at all about Mandates. It is here stated that in order to maintain discipline in the Army it is necessary to pass Clause 14, which gives the same power to enforce military discipline in Mandated territories as in British Protectorates. This Clause is quite superfluous, because we have to-day in time of peace armies outside the British Empire altogether and outside mandated territories in which discipline, for all we know, is successfully enforced. There is the Army of the Black Sea, at present mostly stationed at Constantinople or at the entrance to the Dardanelles.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is not what takes place in Constantinople a question of administration, and therefore should it not le raised, according to Mr. Speaker Lowther's ruling, upon Votes in Supply or upon another occasion?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to the right hon. Baronet that he is not correct on this occasion? This is not a question of administration at all. I am not criticising the stationing of the Army in the Black Sea or at Chanak or at Constantinople, nor am I raising a question of the internal order of that force, but the question of whether it is possible to enforce discipline in that force in the Black Sea without special amendment of the Army (Annual) Act. I am arguing that this Clause is unnecessary for the reasons I shall presently give.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): In explaining the principles of the Bill, I ought to have added that the
various clauses deal with amendments to the existing military law which governs the discipline in the Army and Air Force. It would be in order though not customary on Second Reading to discuss the actual amendments with which the different Clauses in this Bill deal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Thank you, Sir. I will therefore explain why Clause 14 is unnecessary. We have had no question at all, so far as I know, about the possibility of enforcing discipline in the Army of the Black Sea. At present it is stationed on territory outside the British Empire, and not even in a mandated territory. Why is it suddenly discovered, in the year 1923, after we have been exercising a mandate in some cases for three and a half years, with large bodies of troops stationed in mandated territory, that we need to extend the special provisions of this Act as applied to the British Empire to the mandated territory? Has some legally-minded defender in a court-martial raised this point on behalf of his "friend "? Anything that touches mandates should be looked upon, late as the hour is, with very great circumspection. The whole system of mandates is suspect., and if we are going to attempt to bring the discipline of the Army in mandated territories in the same purview as special arrangements for preserving discipline within the Empire, which I do not discuss at all, we again open ourselves to the attacks that are made upon us with reference to our mandates altogether. This is a point of great substance, and I think it is my duty to raise it and to press for an answer.

Mr. MAXTON: I would like, if I am in order, to raise the question of the prices laid down under the Schedule to be paid to persons who have to billet soldiers.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I draw attention to the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker on 12th April, 1920, as follows:
 It has not been the practice upon the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill to have general discussions. No question on the general purposes of the Army can be debated. No question as regards the policy and administration of the Army or with regard to courts-martial can be raised. All these matters should be discussed, and always have to he discussed. in Committee and not on Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1920; col. 1480, Vol. 127.]
Therefore, I maintain that what the hon. Gentleman is going to raise cannot be raised now.

Mr. J. JONES: They shun the light, because their deeds are evil.

Sir F. BANBURY: I submit that any quest-ion as regards the policy and administration of the Army is out of order on this occasion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite clear that matters of detail in regard to prices and Schedules in this Bill would not be in order on Second Reading, but would be suitable for discussion on the Committee stage.

Captain BERKELEY: It is very important that we should have some kind of an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for War on the point that has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It really is a point of substance, this question of the inclusion of provisions with regard to mandated territories, because it seems to me that it involves a further extension of the principle, which I regard as a somewhat pernicious one, of dealing with offences against military discipline by field general court-martial. I am aware—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This particular Clause removes any doubt that may have existed beforehand, so that it does not appear to me that any detailed discussion can arise on it here.

Captain BERKELEY: Subject to your correction, as I understood the proposi-

Division No.75.]
AYES.
[12.11 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Button, H. S.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Baird Rt. Hon. sir John Lawrence
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Foot, Isaac


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Clayton, G. C.
Furness, G. J.


Banks, Mitchell
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Garland, C. S.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Col fox. Major Wm. Phillips
Goff, Sir R. Park


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bonwick, A.
Craig, Capt. C, C. (Antrim, South)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Halstead, Major D.


Boyd Carpenter, Major A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brass, Captain W.
Darbishire, C. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempsteadl
Harbord, Arthur


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hawks, John Anthony


Bruton, Sir James
Ede, James Chuter
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Ellis, R. G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

tion, it was to extend the provisions of the Act to these mandated territories, which, by their very nature, are overseas, and it is to overseas territories that the particular kind of court-martial to which I refer has specific reference under Section 49 of the Army Act. Under that Section it is laid down that where corn-plaint is made to any officer in command of any detachment or portion of troops "in any country beyond the sea," and so on. I take lit that the object of this Clause in the Bill is to clear up any doubt that may exist as to the legality of field general courts-martial being held in these mandated territories now that peace has been concluded and that their normal necessity may be said to have disappeared. I only put this point in order that the Under-Secretary of State for War may clear the matter up.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I suggest that the matter would be better raised in the Committee stage. He need have no anxiety as to any sinister motive being behind this Clause. It is merely to give the High Commissioner in Palestine alocus standi that he does not possess already. It is to bring the administration more under the civil power than it is at present. I suggest that with that single explanation he should allow the discussion to remain over until the Committee stage.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 33.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Hilder, Lieut. Colonel Frank
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nail, Major Joseph
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Hogg, Rt. Hon, Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sandon, Lord


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Simpson, J. Hope


Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster, Mossley)
O'Nellt, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Skelton, A. N.


Houfton, John Plowright
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hudson, Capt. A.
Penny, Frederick George
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hume, G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Philipson, Hilton
Sutcliffe, T.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Phillipps, Vivian
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Winterton, Earl


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Frederick


Lorimer, H. D.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Manville. Edward
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Richardson, Lt.-CAI. Sir P. (Chertsey)



Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Millar, J. D.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Roundell, Colonel R. F.





NOES.


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, S.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Buckle, J.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J, M.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Graham: D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leach, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. d. (Rhondda)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newbold, J. T. w.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Nichol, Robert
Wright, W.


Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)
Ritson. J.
Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Maxton.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. J. Jones.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, ETC., BILL.

Order for Second Reading read and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WAR. MEMORIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS) BILL.

Read a. Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-post Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERadjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.